Some quotes from Chapter 9: (256-278)
258: "the Pope, the head of the sectarians, being in the church, has his seat in the temple of God, as Luther in his writing against Hans Wurst proves"
259: Grabau's false teaching: "The Church does not have the highest and last judgment or the keys directly, but only insofar as it has the office of the Ministry that guides the Confessions, that is, that the highest and last judgment is given only to those in the holy ministry."
261: Pastors "are not special, privileged priests… The public preaching Ministry, however, is not transferred by the congregation or church, but by God only through the congregation or church"
263: "If, otherwise, the doctrine of justification by faith in Jesus Christ alone is to be right, then, as Luther says, our faith and sacrament need not stand on the (administering) person, whether pious or evil, consecrated or unconsecrated, called or crept in, the devil or his mother."
264: "If the Word of God were no longer powerful and sufficient in itself to work the saving faith, then our salvation would be bound to a human person… a fundamental article of the Christian faith"
265: Luther on the Ban: "Thus a Christian congregation is not the maidservant of the official, nor the jailor of the bishop… the congregation shall be judge and mistress." [Luther was a "Missourian".]
265: von Rohr on the Ban: "our ordinance now comes into effect, namely, that the ministry has jurisdiction" — Walther: "your doctrine is strictly against the symbols and Luther."
266: "When we say that the congregation has to judge, we (here) understand congregations not with exclusion but with inclusion of the pastor."
267: "But a ban that is imposed with exclusion of the hearers is according to Luther a sh… ban [Scheisbann (WA), or Scheißbann (W2): "shit ban"], i.e. not the ban that Matt. 18 is talking about… Luther says: “The congregation, in dealing with one of its members who is under the ban, should be sure of the reason it thinks him to be deserving of excommunication."
268: Missouri: "In matters of doctrine and conscience, the majority of votes does not apply, but only the Word of God."
270: "church discipline cannot and must not begin with every sin"
272: "it follows from the Word of the Lord, Luke 10:16, how precisely the authority of his servants [the pastors] is limited."
273: Luther: "Pastors must not pretend that the people are under them."
274: Luther: "If they [bishops] also want to apply force, and compel us to do so, we must not obey, nor consent to it, but rather die."
274: "Pastor Grabau had declared ordination for a commanded divine ordinance, which was under divine and apostolic command. [The same as LCMS Prof. David Scaer.] … the Smalcald Articles say [Tr 70]: 'The ordination (ordinatio) was nothing else (nil nisi) than such a ratification.' which is repeated by Chemnitz and the other pure teachers" [Scaer refuted by Confessions]
Images of some men appearing in Chapter 9: (256-278)
 |
| Walther ——— Schwan ——— Sihler ——— von Rohr —— P. Brand —— Hochstetter |
 |
| See full size version at CHI website here. |
A somewhat humorous cartoon drawing of this Colloquy was made by a Pastor Ruhland and was published by Concordia Historical Institute in "Pieces of Our Past No.50" March 28, 2014. Although the Missourians, on the left, are clearly represented as raptor-like (Walther like an eagle), it is not clear to me what the representation of the Buffalo colloquents was. By the list of participants from Hochstetter on p. 271 and in the Christian Cyclopedia, the drawing, although depicting all the the main colloquents, omits a number of delegates.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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.
One must realize while reading especially this chapter 9 dealing with Pastor Grabau and the Buffalo Synod that "the writer of these lines", Hochstetter himself, was a party to his own History. We will see that this was not the only place where he participated in his own History, we see him again in Chapter 10. — Carl S. Meyer makes very limited use of Hochstetter in his Moving Frontiers "history", mentioning him (p. 271) only for the Predestinarian Controversy. Meyer evidently considered Hochstetter a "little historian". — After the break below, the customary fine print version. — In the next Part 14, Chapter 10.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Full text of Chapter 9 (fine print) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The History of the Missouri Synod, 1838-1884, Chapter 9
By Christian Hochstetter
= = = = = = = = =
The Buffalo Colloquium,
that is:
The proceedings and final declarations of the colloquents representing the Buffalo Synod and the Missouri Synod. [the doctrine of the Church (258); the doctrine of the Ministry (259); the doctrine of the Ban (264); on the Office of the Keys (271); the power of the minister in indifferent matters (adiaphora) (272); of the doctrine of ordination (274); Buffalo Synod meets after Colloquium (275)]
This colloquium was opened in Buffalo on November 20, 1866, within the reorganized congregation that had parted from Pastor Grabau in May of the same year. The representatives of the Missouri Synod in attendance were Professor C. F. W. Walther, Pastor H. C. Schwan, Dr. W. Sihler and the delegates: J. C. D. Römer, J. Keil and Joh. C. Teiß. As colloquents of the Buffalo Synod had been chosen pastor H. von Rohr, pastor Chr. Hochstetter, pastor P. Brand and the delegates: Chr. Krull, Ernst Schorr and Hans A. Christiansen.
257 >
After a twenty-five year doctrinal dispute preceded this meeting, and the main obstacle, why such a colloquium had not taken place long ago, had now been removed, the Buffalo ministerium of Detroit had already in August of that year informed Professor Walther, the president of the Missouri synod, that on the part of Buffalo one was now also willing to go into the religious discussion offered twenty years before by the Saxon pastors. At the request of Professor Walther, as mentioned above [p. 256], a meeting and private conversation took place in Fort Wayne on October 10 and 11 of that year between Professor Walther and the local pastor Sihler on the one hand, and the pastors von Rohr and Hochstetter on the other. There the firm hope was gained that the public colloquium would lead to complete understanding and agreement. They had already gotten to know each other when the time of the colloquium in Buffalo on November 20 approached. Apart from the proceedings, which took place in public in the church, it was now also necessary to break the shackles that had been put on both pastors and parishioners by a long-standing party hatred. At the colloquium itself, Pastor von Rohr, one of the Buffalo colloquents, maintained certain doctrinal differences until the end. The others, however, all three Buffalo Synod delegates and Pastors Brand and Hochstetter, put the following into the minutes: “Finally, the Buffalo delegates, having agreed with the declarations of the Missouri colloquents which have been placed into the minutes and these on their part having agreed with the declarations of the Buffalo colloquents, — the doctrinal unity between the Missouri Synod and us is now fully established.”
Thereupon the Missouri colloquents, for their part, recorded the following: “All the present representatives of the Missouri Synod, for their part, respond to the above declaration by declaring that they too, with thanks and praise to the Lord, recognize complete doctrinal unity
258 >
with the aforementioned for the outcome of this colloquium and therefore extend their fraternal hand to them in the face of the whole church.”
The doctrinal points, on which differences had previously taken place between the two synods, were discussed one after the other, and these concerned:
1. the doctrine of the Church [Kirche]. After previous discussion, it was finally declared: That to the Church of which the Apostles Creed speaks, or to the Church in the true sense of the word only true believers and saints belong, or that only these are true members of it, that in this life of such Church there are however always hypocrites or non-Christians mixed in, and that therefore the invisible and visible Church are not two different Churches, but only one.
Since it would be papistic to declare the orthodox visible Church as the one holy Christian Church, outside of which there is no salvation, the colloquents of the Missouri Synod declared that not only those fellowships of people are churches according to God's Word in which the doctrine of the Gospel is preached quite purely and all sacraments are administered without corruption, but also those where, as Luther says, Word and sacrament are not, however, denied and rejected, but where both remain essential; it is assumed also that such fellowship in its public confession would be afflicted and stained with fundamental errors, namely with errors which do not downright overthrow the foundation, but can directly overthrow it (e.g. an error about Holy Communion). — Pastor von Rohr was not satisfied with this explanation, but remained of the opinion that an assembly which is in a fundamental error is not a church. Whereupon he was shown that according to 2 Thess. 2:4, Acts 29:30, 1 Cor. 11:19, 2 Peter 2:1, Rev. 2:15 sects arise in the midst of the church, that such sects are not of the church (not belonging to the church), but in the church, that also the Pope, the head of the sectarians, being in the church, has his seat in the temple of God, as Luther in his
259 >
writing against Hans Wurst [AE 41, 179-256] proves such a thing and says in a simile: he lies on the church like the bear lies on top of a man, but which does not belong to the man at all because of this, on the contrary, one would like to get rid of him. — “In answer to Pastor von Rohr, we do not ask and believe that the Church consists of all sects, but only that the sects are in the Church like filth in the human body, but that they also have believers in their fellowships, as long as they still possess the Word of God, for which reason they are still called churches, and that they are still within the boundaries of so-called Christianity. The sects, as such, do not therefore belong to the church of the called, but are merely in the multitude which we call the church of the called, or the universal visible Church.”
Accordingly, the other five Buffalo colloquents recognized as false the following, which had been found in the Informatorium and partly also in the Buffalo synodical reports up to that time: (1) The visible Lutheran Church is not a particular church, but the one flock of which the Lord Christ speaks, John 15:16, and outside of it God does not gather His sheep! (2) No one can be saved outside the visible Lutheran Church. (3) False churches do not contain the invisible church as a part of their particular denominations within themselves, and therefore cannot be called church by synecdoche [a figure of speech] (i.e. for the sake of the believers hidden within them). (4) The Church does not have the highest and last judgment or the keys directly, but only insofar as it has the office of the Ministry that guides the Confessions, that is, that the highest and last judgment is given only to those in the holy ministry. As a result of the rejection of these assertions, it has also been admitted that the lay delegates to the Councils (synodical conventions and colloquiums) have the same right to judge as the pastors.
2. the doctrine of the holy Ministry. After the Buffalo colloquents’ concerns about the doctrine that the office of the Ministry is transferred [übertragen] by the congregations to the one who is called were heard and discussed,
260 >
Prof. Walther, along with the other Missourian colloquents, put into the minutes the following, which put Thesis VII in the second part of the book of Church and Ministry (see Chapter VII) in a clear light:
Only the truly believing persons belong to the Church. According to Matt. 16, Christ gave the Church of the believers the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and with them all the powers and rights that exist in the Church, which is why the Apostle in 1 Cor. 3 also calls out to the believers: “All things are yours.” In the Church of the New Testament, the distinction that took place in the Church of the Old Testament was made by the cancelation of only one tribe, and especially one family, having the priesthood; according to 1 Peter 2, it is rather the whole Church of the believers who are of priestly race and class. Therefore, while in the Old Testament no act, such as a sacrifice, which belongs to the priest, was valid if it was performed by a person who did not belong to the separated priestly family, all the believers of the New Testament, on the other hand, have the inner capacity to perform all priestly functions, no longer being, like the believers of the Old Testament as children under guardianship, where there is no difference between them and servants, but are free children of God according to Galatians. 4:1. But Christ, in addition to the spiritual priesthood, by the selection and calling of the holy Apostles to the public administration of all priestly offices, established and instituted the public Ministry in His Church for all time until the end of time.
With this, Christ has not abolished the equality of all His believers according to their status and rights, for they are and remain all brethren, spiritual priests and kings; but because Christ has ordered and instituted the public preaching Ministry among His Christians, as spiritual priests, no private Christians are now allowed to exercise the rights of the spiritual priesthood in public office, but only as their
261 >
status and calling and need demands. On the other hand, since those who hold the office of the public Ministry are distinguished from Christians only by the fact that they administer the priestly offices which belong only to Christians in the public office, they are not special, privileged priests, and do not constitute a special priesthood, but are only the servants among priests.
The church is, as Scripture says, the mistress of the house, while the public pastors are the stewards; the one is the bride of Christ, the pastors are her servants, according to 2 Cor. 4:5, Col. 1:24-25. The public preaching Ministry, however, is not transferred by [von] the congregation or church, but by [von] God only through [durch] the congregation or church, namely through election and calling. The church is not the first and original cause of it, but only the mediate cause, or, as our theologians say, the less original (minus principalis); much less is the public ministry of preaching merely the consequence of a moral necessity, that is, a human church order [per Hoefling]. The first and original cause of it is rather the great God himself, it is divine institution. Hence public pastors, although they are servants and ministers of the Church, are even more servants and ministers of God, and their Ministry, although they administer it in the name and in the place of the Church, rather carry it out in the name and in the place of God and Christ, or are ambassadors in Christ's place.
It is true that, by virtue of the calling, the church or congregations [Kirche oder Gemeinde] do not transfer to the ministers of the church any offices other than their own (without, of course, losing them in the same way that the householder does not lose any of his rights when he transfers the rights of the household to someone); the mere fact that it transfers on the ministers of the church the task of administering these offices publicly is not because every Christian has the right to exercise the office of preaching publicly, but because Christ has given His Church the command and power to call special persons to it, and to entrust them with the task of administering the office publicly
262 >
among Christians; therefore the public Ministry is by no means a so-called collective priesthood, or that it could be called such, for Christians are priests through their baptism which they have received or at least embraced through faith; they have not however thereby become public teachers, preachers, pastors, bishops, etc.
When in the book of Church and Ministry it is claimed that the public Ministry was established by God for the sake of order alone, it is only in contrast to this, that God, by establishing the public Ministry, has established a new different status, as was the case under the economy of the Law in the Old Testament. Among incidental causes, for example, there is no doubt that the gifts that Christ gives for the administration of the public Ministry can be used for the common good, and the body of Christ can thus be built up and the like.
When finally in the book Of the Church and Ministry p. 355 it says that Christians are not only entitled but also "called" to exercise their priestly rights to others, then here the call is not taken in the narrower sense of a ministerial call, as the public pastors in the church have it, but in the general sense of being obliged before God. Incidentally, teaching, admonishing, punishing with God's word, consoling, baptizing, absolving and the like are understood here under the priestly offices. Note:
If a distinction is made between an office in abstracto and an office in concreto, the former is understood to be the office, if one disregards the persons who bear it; the latter is understood to be the office, if persons are entrusted with it.
2) Pastor von Rohr declared regard to these statements: “I am satisfied with this explanation with regard to the origin of the office of the ministry and the doctrine of transference [Uebertragungslehre], which was disputed until then. The expression “Church of believers” belongs to the difference between visible and invisible church and is not meant by me with this agreement.”
263 >
3) The other colloquents on the part of the Buffalo Synod, Pastor Brand, Pastor Hochstetter, Chr. Krull, E. Schorr and H. Christiansen, declared themselves to be in complete agreement with the above essay, so that the reservations they had earlier were now lifted and no difference remained between them and the other side. —
The false doctrine contained in both the Pastoral Letter and the second Buffalo Synodical Letter was then discussed, as if the valid divine call or public office gave power and effect to the words of institution, e.g. in Holy Communion. (2nd Synodical Letter p. 11 and 12).
With the exception of Pastor von Rohr, who gave his own declaration on this matter, in which he held fast to this false doctrine, which was recognized by all other colloquents as the most serious error ever taught in the Buffalo Synod, the Buffalo colloquents declared the following, among other things:
If, otherwise, the doctrine of justification by faith in Jesus Christ alone is to be right, then, as Luther says, our faith and sacrament need not stand on the (administering) person, whether pious or evil, consecrated or unconsecrated, called or crept in, the devil or his mother. — We well know that the person who presses himself into a ministry without being called sins, according to Hebr. 5:4. We also confess that all those share in sin who, against their better knowledge and conscience, hear such uncalled persons or use their ministry; but God's truth is not annulled by our sinning, and God's Word and Sacrament itself does not become uncertain and powerless, no matter by whom it may be proclaimed and administered. Christ, as Luther says, for the sake of evil men (i.e., in this case, for the sake of deceitful sneaks) will not be a liar nor a deceiver of His church, but will baptize and give her His body and blood, no matter whose hand it is through which He does it. The Word of God itself is called in 2 Cor. 3 a ministry of the Spirit, because "the words that I speak," says Christ in John 6:63,
264 >
“they are Spirit, and they are life.” The Holy Spirit, as the ancients teach, is inseparable from the pure Word and properly administered sacraments. Therefore, M. Chemnitz, who is not a pietistic teacher but one of the authors of the Formula of Concord, teaches: “There is no doubt that God is active through the proclaimed voice of the Gospel, by whomever it may be proclaimed.” Chemnitz also firmly rejects the teaching oft the Council of Trent which makes the truth and efficacy of absolution and the sacraments dependent, even partially, on the person of the absolver. — If the Word of God were no longer powerful and sufficient in itself to work the saving faith, then our salvation would be bound to a human person, and if any doubt arose as to the legitimacy of the pastor's call, then also the validity of baptism, the Lord's Supper, and absolution would become doubtful, the faith itself would be shaken by this. It was still recognized that the doctrine hereby rejected was contrary to a fundamental article of the Christian faith.
3) The doctrine of the ban. Since there are still some doubts and prejudices about the doctrine and handling of the ban, as it rightly exists in the Missouri Synod, also in Germany, the stenographic report on the proceedings conducted in this matter is printed here verbatim from the 1883 Lutheran Volksblatt, Nos. 11 and 12:
Of the ban the Buffalo Synod had taught, according to § 18, Year 9, No. 16 of Der Lutheraner, the following:
“The congregation [Gemeine or Gemeinde] therefore has no judgment or command or declaration that he, (the sinner) should be taken for such (a heathen and a publican)” *) (Second
–––––––––
*) This sentence was declared as false because it implies the opinion that the preacher alone has the decision in disputed cases; on the other hand, it was also recognized at the colloquium that even when the congregation decides, only that which is decided according to the Word of God is to be accepted as the voice of the Church [Kirche].
265 >
(Second Synodical Report p. 28) “It is equally erroneous that in disputed cases the congregation has the decision on the use of the binding and loosing keys.”
Walther: In contrast, the Smalcald Articles say [Tr 24]: “Christ speaks in these words: Whatsoever ye shall bind, [Matt. 18:18] etc., and indicates to whom He has given the keys, namely, to the Church: Where two or three are gathered together.” And Luther says (Erlang. XXXI p. 177): “Thus a Christian congregation is not the maidservant of the official, nor the jailor of the bishop so he can say to her: You Grethe, you Hans, place this one or that one under the ban. — Awe, yes, be welcome, dear official. In worldly supremacy such a thing might go, but here, since it concerns souls, the congregation shall be judge and mistress” (Official was the name of a bishop's vicar, who did the work of the diocese, while the bishop had his pleasure). It is therefore a terrible presumption for the pastors to award the keys to themselves alone and to impose the ban alone; such a ban is against God's Word and therefore false.
von Rohr: When Luther says, “The congregation shall also be judge and mistress,” I allow this to apply to the extent that the congregation may judge, however, by admonishing the sinner as a publican and heathen, because he does not accept the admonition in the second degree. Then there is no need for any further judgment, but only that the church, according to Christ's command, considers him to be a Gentile and publican. For if the sinner has been in the second degree of admonition, our ordinance now comes into effect, namely, that the ministry has jurisdiction, and this [the Ministry] now uses its power and judges whether Christ's statement is to take place here or not. According to our Second Synodical Letter, “for the sake of all kinds of sin” the ban is to be pronounced on the impenitent. This is our doctrine and I think you could well be satisfied with this declaration.
Walther: We can not be satisfied with that at all, because your doctrine is strictly against the symbols and Luther. It
266 >
Herewith the congregations are basically deprived of the right to have a voice in the decision of a ban [Bannerkenntnis], they are reduced to being the pastor's jailor [Stockmeisterin]. What otherwise it would have been, if the pastors of Buffalo had told their congregations: “You do have the right of the binding key according to the symbols and Matt. 18, but for the sake of order leave it to us in the ministry.” However here the congregations are really denied the right, that is to say, they are taught quite falsely.”
Hochstetter: But the exhortation that is given to the congregation is also a judgment?
Schwan: Indeed, but who is to decide when there has been enough admonition? According to Matt. 18 obviously the congregation, because the Lord refers to them, even if the sinner remains impenitent in the second degree.
von Rohr: Then what remains for the pastor?
Walther: The pastor also has to judge, yes, he has to go ahead in his judgment, because he has to teach and instruct the others all about the matter as Paul does in 1 Cor. 5; then he has to execute the ban decision publicly by publicly pronouncing and proclaiming the ban on the sinner. When we say that the congregation has to judge, we (here) understand congregations not with exclusion but with inclusion of the pastor, that is to say the congregation and its pastor.
von Rohr: In our banning proceedings we followed the Saxon and Pomeranian church order.
Walther: No, that is precisely what you have not done. For according to these church orders, the right of the binding key is not denied to the congregations in principle; for the same Bugenhagen who drafted the Pomeranian church order also signed the Smalcald Articles, in which the congregation is granted this right. Then these church regulations explicitly state that the decision to ban is to be given by a consistory, i.e. by pastors and laymen who represent the audience; but you have completely excluded the laymen, and this power is reserved only for the
267 >
ministerium, i.e. to the pastors. But a ban that is imposed with exclusion of the hearers is according to Luther a sh… ban [Scheisbann (WA 30II, 502, ln 10), or Scheißbann (StL 19, 950, 94): “shit ban”; AE 40, 371: “execrable ban”.], i.e. not the ban that Matt. 18 is talking about, even if the person in question is really worthy of the ban because of his sin. Luther says: “The congregation, in dealing with one of its members who is under the ban, should be sure of the reason it thinks him to be deserving of excommunication as the words of Christ in our text direct. (Matt. 18)” [StL 19, 950, 94; AE 40, 371] But how can the congregation do this, if the sinner is not brought before it, and if the trial is not conducted in its midst?
Here one of the listeners appeared, asked for the floor and testified that he had been banned by the Buffalo ministry during the cent tax dispute and still does not know why, because he had never been admonished and the superiors he asked for could not tell him either.
Walther: That is terrible and quite a false, unjust ban.
von Rohr: If this has happened, it has happened against our order.
But from many sides it was testified that such a thing had happened several times. Many had often been banned on the spot, within a few days, especially if they had previously been considered disobedient to the ministerium.
Walther: Consider the serious, terrible word that Luther calls out to all those who impose a false ban: “Your own conscience will condemn you and say: You have blasphemed God’s name and dishonored the keys, and, in addition, you have done an injustice and violence to your neighbor. You have disturbed his conscience with lies and led him astray, leaving him in error as to his understanding of the keys and causing his spiritual death. What will you then do?” [StL 19, 950, 93; AE 40, 371]
In the afternoon Pastor von Rohr traveled to Wolcottsville and did not participate in these proceedings; after they were presented to him the following Monday, he declared the following, despite his undoubtedly clamoring conscience, as follows:
With respect to the ban and the office of the keys I acknowledge
268 >
the previous doctrine of the Buffalo Synod, as being in accordance with the Word of God and the symbols, as well as to the practice or exercise of our Saxon and Pomeranian church orders, apart from deviations to be shown in individual cases due to weakness or injustice. On the other hand, I recognize the doctrine of the Missouri Synod as entirely new, false and church-dividing.
We continue with the report of the proceedings:
Walther: In 1 Cor. 5 Paul punishes not only the pastor, but the whole congregation in Corinth for not having imposed the ban on the incestuous person, how could he do that if the pastor alone had the jurisdiction? And again, since they are to take up this incestuous person again, he likewise demands not only the pastor, but the whole congregation. He uses the little word Kuroun, which according to Chemnitz means to accept something by public, common judgment.
Buffalo: Surely the ban can't be enforced at all by majority vote or proxy?
Missouri: By no means, in matters of doctrine and conscience, the majority of votes does not apply, but only the Word of God. So when the matter has reached the point of exclusion, we hold a poll in the congregational assembly to see whether each individual has now won the conviction that the sinner belongs under the ban. If anyone still has doubts, they are resolved for him, and this process continues until all have gained the same conviction and agree with a firm heart to the same judgment.
Buffalo: Can the ban not be imposed sooner than until everyone is in agreement?
Missouri: No, not before, for if all are to think of him as a heathen and publican, then all who represent the congregation must have the same judgment of him. — What would have been achieved if the ban had been pronounced, but many would not consider the sinner to be worthy of being banned? Would such a ban really make a big impression on the sinners?
269 >
Certainly not; if I cut my finger, but it still hangs on by one fourth of its thickness, it is not separated from the body, even though I tried to do so.
Buffalo: But in this way any malicious person or friend and relative of the sinner could prevent the excommunication or at least delay it.
Missouri: Not as easily as it might seem, for if the sin is indeed mortal sin and if the sin is as evident as the sinner's impenitence, and if the pastor and the congregation testify against it in all seriousness, then it takes a very raw and unbelieving mind to publicly support such a sinner; if it does happen, however, such a sinner must be admonished and the other process of banishment must be postponed for the time being. Such unfair fellows, incidentally, are usually revealed soon enough, and then cause little difficulty.
Buffalo: At the very least this makes the process of banning a very slow one.
Missouri: That's true, you won't be able to handle it in a few weeks. But who would want to criticize or lament this, since the Lord Christ Himself has so ordered it, and He knows best how to govern His Church; also the sinner has all the more room for repentance. At last, time and work are not lost, even if it should not help the sinner, because it is precisely with such a conscientious procedure that a congregation learns an immense amount, is powerfully promoted in the knowledge and Christian handling of church discipline; to continue with new seriousness in one's own sanctification seizes one's mind, one becomes aware of the heavy responsibility one has to give to one's fellow Christians, and the ban, when it is finally imposed, will be all the more an earnest, heavy, and blessed rod of discipline. The fact that everyone in the congregation has pronounced the same judgment and understanding will shake the hardened sinner all the more salutarily, and all the more likely will he be moved to repentance.
270 >
Buffalo: You said before about mortal sins that it is your opinion that only those should be banished?
Missouri: Indeed, only in the case of mortal sins, i.e. sins where faith cannot stand. It is quite wrong when it says in your Second Synodical Letter that banishment can follow because of all sins. Christ himself indicates which sins can lead to the ban, for when he says in the case of repentance: "Thus you have gained your brother," he indicates that it must be such a sin because of which the brother was lost. No one can justly impose the ban on someone, for example, because he does not accept a cent tax, for the whole Church cannot make a law which binds consciences, let alone a congregation or a pastor. If it could, it would be necessary for the sake of salvation to keep this law, which is contrary to Article 28 of the Augsburg Confession. Where would we end up, if one wanted to start church discipline because of every sin, even for the sins of weakness? There would then be no end in sight, for we sin every hour and every minute; one would finally have to take into church discipline, as Ströbel says, even him who blows his nose too hard and forces blood out, which is also against the fifth commandment. It is just as obvious that sin must be of such a nature that everyone, even the weakest, recognizes it clearly and distinctly as such, and can easily conclude from this that anyone who does such things and is not repentant can no longer be a Christian.
Buffalo: According to this, a lot of sinners could go unpunished!
Missouri: Why not? One should, must and can punish, rebuke and reject all kinds of sins, that is what God's Word commands us to do. Only church discipline cannot and must not begin with every sin; for where the same cannot end with the excommunication if the admonition is to be fruitless, one must not enter into it either, because it would be against all Christian love and wisdom to take a brother to the third degree of admonition and then finally have to declare
271 >
that his sin is such a sin, where perhaps faith can still be present and for the sake of which he cannot yet be declared a heathen and a publican and so be put under the ban.
Finally, the other five Buffalo colloquents presented the following statement on the Office of the Keys.
“The Small Catechism of Luther teaches that the ministry of the keys is the peculiar church power that Christ gave to His Church on earth. Thus also the Smalcald Articles teach principaliter et immediate, i.e. originally and without means the Church has the Keys. From this it follows that the congregation in the exercise of the office of the keys is not merely the object of pastoral care, but must itself take an active part in it. Since the public handling of the ban affects the conscience of the whole congregation, the Church has not entrusted it to the holy Ministry alone, but exercises it through herself, as Calov says. — According to Matt. 18 the degrees of admonition must always precede the decision of the ban. But it is not possible for the congregation to admonish without at the same time gaining an inner judgment about the sinner. If the imposition of the ban is to be followed, the pastor should ‘lead the way with his judgment’, as Brochmand writes, and show the congregation the way according to Matt. 18:17 and 1 Cor. 5:4, addressing his congregation: ‘In the name of Jesus Christ the sinner is handed over to Satan. Remove him from your midst! Purge out the old leaven.’ So the judgment of excommunication, as Luther writes on 1 Cor. 5, is to be pronounced with the approval of the believing congregation. The old principle is also rightly cited here: Whatever concerns all shall be done with the consent of all (quae ad omnes pertinent, cum consensu omnium fieri debent). In obedience to the Word of Christ, such a decision must always be unanimous. The supreme judge is and always remains the Word of God. A believing congregation must submit to the Word of God, for the decision according to the Word is to be considered the voice of the Church.” — with this
272 >
declaration, the colloquents of the Missouri Synod also agreed.
4) The doctrine of the power of the ministerial office in indifferent things also had to be discussed because Pastor Grabau had attacked the Missourians in this part with the following words: “They (the Missourians) teach against the 28th article of the Augsburg Confession, that the congregation is obedient to its pastor only when and insofar as he preaches God's Word to them; but if he merely admonishes them or demands something in church matters that is not against God's Word (e.g. a school building), they can refuse to obey.”
The five Buffalo colloquents, with the exception of Pastor von Rohr, made the following statement: “Article 28 of the Augsburg Confession says [§ 8]: ‘The same power (that is, of the bishops in general) is exercised and practiced solely by the teaching and preaching of the Word of God.’ [after the German text] And we teach with Luther that one is in duty bound by divine command to obey pastors, who have been called to the ministry of preaching and administering the sacraments, and who therefore proclaim the exalted divine Word, and rightly teach the Gospel in all matters which the Gospel either commands or forbids, on pain of eternal damnations, according to the passage: ‘He that heareth you heareth me.’ [Luke 10:16] — In this divine work the pastor stands in Christ's place and does not command or forbid for his own person, but as Christ. But it follows from the Word of the Lord, Luke 10:16, how precisely the authority of his servants [the pastors] is limited, which is why the Apology, when explaining Article 28 of the Augsburg Confession [§ 18-19] under Article 7 [? sic], says of abuses: ‘For it is certain that the expression Luke 10:16: ‘He that heareth you heareth Me’, does not speak of traditions [Menschensatzungen], but is chiefly directed against traditions. For it is not a mandatum cum libera (a bestowal of unlimited authority), as they call it, but it is a cautio de rato (a caution concerning something prescribed), namely, concerning the special command [not a free, unlimited order and power, but a limited order namely, not to preach their own word, but God's Word and the Gospel] … ‘He that heareth you heareth Me’, cannot be understood of traditions.’ The Apology [Ap 28, 6, paraphrased] also teaches
273 >
from the passage Hebr. 13:17 does not give ‘the bishops their own dominion or authority other than the Gospel’. Our symbols in this are undoubtedly consistent with God's Word. For St. Peter, 1 Pet. 5:1-3, admonishes the elders to feed the flock, but ‘neither as being lords over God's heritage’ (cf. 1 Cor 7:35; 1 Cor 11:34). Luther explains 1 Pet. 5:3 as follows: ‘Preachers must not pretend that the people are under them, for we have one Lord, who is Christ, who rules our souls. The bishops are to do nothing except to feed; they have no power to command one single word, but should be only servants, saying: This says your Lord Christ, therefore you should do this, — as also Luke 22:25-26 teaches.” Furthermore we read 2 Cor. 8:8 that Paul, while asking the Corinthians for a collection for the poor, says: “I speak not by commandment, but by occasion of the forwardness of others, and to prove the sincerity of your love.” From this it follows in particular, also where he says ‘And the rest will I set in order when I come’ [1 Cor. 11:34], that he will not proceed by commanding, but by giving counsel and with the approval of the whole congregation.’ In the following, the expressions of Article 28, which were often misused in the Buffalo Synod, are put into perspective, e.g. when it is said that such an order ought to be maintained for the sake of love and peace, etc., it must be observed that, as Carpzov says, this is speaking according to the circumstances of that time, because under the obedience which, according to divine right, is due to pastors, Article 28 does not mention anything about human ordinances. This also follows from the word "it fitting or proper" (convenit). It was also false to say that ‘the Word of God is part of the church orders, therefore obedience, convinced by the Word of God, is also demanded in indifferent things’ [or adiaphora]. Indifferent things are just such things which are neither commanded nor forbidden in God's Word, therefore no man, neither ministerium nor synod, can command or forbid in indifferent things, for Christ has redeemed us as from the compulsion and curse of the divine law, so also
274 >
from all ceremonial and human laws. Also pleading and pressuring, if it is followed by church discipline and the ban, belongs among the matters of which Luther says [W1 16, 1208, 2; cf. StL 16, 1016; AE 49, 386-7]: ‘If they [bishops] also want to apply force, and compel us to do so, we must not obey, nor consent to it, but rather die; therefore, we cannot grant the bishops, either by ecclesiastical or secular law, the power to command the churches to do a certain thing, no matter how right and godly it may be, because nothing bad must happen for good to come of it.’ Article 28 of the Augsburg Confession does not, therefore, exclude the unanimity of the church with the pastors, but rather, as Carpzov says, includes it, ‘so that such orders are not made without the consensus or against the will of the Church (congregation).’”
After the above declaration was read and accepted, there remained to the discussion
5) on the doctrine of ordination. Pastor Grabau had declared ordination for a commanded divine ordinance, which was under divine and apostolic command. In contrast, the Buffalo colloquents (with the exception of Pastor von Rohr) now presented the following as their final conviction: That they recognize in the ordination an action which is not a divine institution, and accordingly does not first make the call a right call, but nevertheless has important reasons for itself, and should not be missing in an orderly way, because it is a public confirmation of the regular call, introduced according to apostolic usage, and therefore should not be omitted without necessity, as then the Smalcald Articles say [Tr 70]: "The ordination (ordinatio) was nothing else (nil nisi) than such a ratification," which is repeated by Chemnitz and the other pure teachers.
After eleven days of meetings, the Buffalo Colloquium was concluded with the above statement. A clear protocol containing the final statements of the two colloquents was printed in St. Louis and distributed widely, especially in the congregations of the Buffalo Synod. Meanwhile the diversity of
275 >
elements that had been hidden in the Buffalo Synod under Pastor Grabau's governance became apparent. Pastor Grabau himself was re-elected as Senior Minister by the few followers who remained, continued his fanatical opposition and again founded his own small official organ, the so-called Die Wachende Kirche, which, however, was not noticed by anyone but his own followers. He died in Buffalo in 1879. Since Pastor von Rohr had already taken a special partisan position during the colloquium, he also formed his own faction by attracting three other Buffalo pastors, to which several more joined in the course of the following years. His previous congregation in Neu-Bergholz agreed with the result of the Buffalo Colloquium, joined the Missouri Synod, by the greater part, in faith and doctrine and appointed another pastor, W. Weinbach, in his place. Pastor von Rohr died in 1875 in Walwow [Walmore?], near Neu-Bergholz. After his death, this faction, which had also called itself the Buffalo Synod, was dissolved by a formal resolution. Several others from the previous Buffalo pastors joined the Ohio Synod, as their congregations were inclined to the Missouri Synod, but these pastors themselves did not. Since it was agreed after the conclusion of the Buffalo Colloquium to call a Buffalo Synod meeting again at the beginning of 1867, twelve pastors and five congregational delegates gathered in the hall of the Martin Luther College in Buffalo, where the Buffalo Synod used to gather, on February 26, 1867. An invitation had also been extended to the resident Missouri pastors; accordingly, five pastors of the Missouri Synod had appeared as guests. The writer of these lines opened this Tenth convention of the Buffalo Synod with an address in which he demonstrated that faithful Lutherans must value the bond of faith that binds them to like-minded confessors more highly than a mere bond of constitution. Although
276 >
Pastor von Rohr, after the first meeting with Prof. Walther, also expressed the hope that the colloquium would lead to a complete understanding and fraternal agreement with the Missouri Synod, he nevertheless withdrew from the midst of the colloquents and declared his doctrinal difference to be church-dividing. We do not want to hate those who leave us as we go our way, nor do we want to let ourselves be misled by them. It is certain, however, that the Lord God is now sweeping the threshing floor in the area of the Buffalo Synod, and that the time has come for everyone to pursue their own convictions in matters of faith. For the time being, the result of the Buffalo Colloquium is available for consideration or acceptance, in the hope that this Synod will find the same to be founded on God's Word and in harmony with the Lutheran symbols. Under the chairmanship of Pastor F. Zeumer, the previous differences in the doctrine of the two synods were reviewed once again in accordance with the present colloquium protocol, and the result of this religious discussion was unanimously accepted by all present. Since Prof. Walther had given a special declaration at the end of the colloquium with regard to those persons who had been transferred from the Buffalo Synod to the Missouri Synod in the course of the past years and had been accepted by it, and had also been provided with pastors, in which it was proved that this separation had been caused by the false doctrines and practices of the Buffalo Synod, this declaration, which is found on p. 29 of the above-mentioned publication, was also examined and recognized and accepted as correct by all synodal members. Since among the guests present from the Missouri Synod there were several pastors who served those opposition congregations, which had until then been looked upon on the part of Buffalo as rabble, these pastors declared that although the ban customary in the Buffalo Synod had not been legitimately enforced, and although the Missouri pastors had been denied access to the documents, it had nevertheless at all times been the
277 >
principle of the Missouri Synod to faithfully lead to repentance those who had been banned for real sins when they came to the Missouri pastors, before they were accepted, and that the Missouri pastors nevertheless distinguished between those who deserved to be banned for their sins and those who had not committed a sin worthy of banishment but had nevertheless been banned! Having hereby approved the outcome of the colloquium, this synodical convention took steps to regulate its relationship with the Missouri Synod. It was therefore unanimously decided on February 28 to revoke all joint participation in the false doctrines found in the Buffalo Synod writings, including all abuses with which the Missouri Synod and its teachers had been persecuted up to that time; it was also declared that the Buffalo Synod writings which had been written mainly with the intention of justifying and spreading the above-mentioned false doctrines could not be given more doctrinal credit. On the following day, March 1, 1867, the Missouri pastors reappeared in the midst of this assembly to reconcile themselves with these synodical representatives and to recognize them all as brethren *), whereupon
––––––––––
*) Since in most places around Buffalo and elsewhere the congregations of the mutual synods had been in opposition until then, the task remained to heal the rift that had arisen among the congregations. At the end of the synod, the Buffalo pastors and their congregations usually joined the Missouri Synod, which also initiated the unification of the congregations and put an end to the division in their locality. This happened in the city of Buffalo and other places. These are the names of the twelve pastors who, with the exception of one, joined the Missouri Synod in the course of the next few years after the Buffalo Synod was adjourned indefinitely on March 1, 1867: The late F.G. Zeumer, then E. Leenhuis, Christian Hochstetter, A.G. Döhler, G. Wolläger, Christian Bauer, P. Brand, H. Kanold, G. Runkel, O. Wuest, W. Weinbach, Christian Grossberger.
278 >
they mutually exchanged the fraternal kiss and handshake. With heartfelt thanks to God and the request for His blessing on the concluded fraternal union, this session was concluded and the Synod adjourned with the last two verses of the hymn: “All Praise to God, Who Reigns Above” [“Sei Lob und Ehr dem höchsten Gut” # 350, verse 9 : TLH 19], with the last lines of which this subject may also find its conclusion [translated]:
God has thought it all out
And everything, everything done right ,
Give Glory to our God!
In the next Part 14, Chapter 10.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments only accepted when directly related to the post.