American Lutheranism

Chapter 3

Prev List Next

49. Government of and by the Ministers.--A clear conception of the doctrines of the Church and of the holy ministry was something Muhlenberg did not possess. Hence his congregations also were not educated to true independence and to the proper knowledge and exercise of their priestly rights and duties. Dr. Mann says of Muhlenberg and his coworkers: "These fathers were very far from giving the Lutheran Church, as they organized it on this new field of labor, a form and character in any essential point different from what the Lutheran Church was in the Old World, and especially in Germany." (Spaeth, _C. P. Krauth_, 1, 317.) The pastor ruled the elders; the pastor and the elders ruled the congregation; the synod ruled the pastor, the elders, and the congregation; the College of Pastors ruled the synod and the local pastor together with his elders and his congregation; and all of these were subject to, and ruled by, the authorities in Europe. The local congregations were taught to view themselves, not as independent, but as parts of, and subject to, the body of United Congregations and Pastors.

The const.i.tution for congregations simply presupposed that a congregation was a member of, and subordinate to, Synod. (499.) This appears also from a doc.u.ment signed by the elders of Tulpehocken and Northkill (Nordkiel), August 24, 1748, two days before the organization of the Pennsylvania Synod. In it the elders, in the name of the congregations, state and promise: "In this it always remains presupposed that we with the United Congregations const.i.tute one whole Ev. Lutheran congregation, which acknowledges and respects as her lawful pastors all the pastors who const.i.tute the College of Pastors (Collegium Pastorum) and remains in the closest connection with them, as being our regular teachers. . . . Accordingly, we have the desire to be embodied and incorporated in the United Congregations in Pennsylvania, and to be recognized and received by them as brethren and members of a special congregation of the Ev. Lutheran Church, and consequently to share in the pastoral care of the College of all the Rev. Pastors of the United Congregations. In accordance herewith we most publicly and solemnly desire, acknowledge and declare all the Rev. Pastors of the United Church-Congregations to be our pastors and ministers (Seelsorger und Hirten); we also give them complete authority to provide for the welfare of our souls, how and through whom, also as long as, they choose. We furthermore promise to regard the Rev. College of Pastors of the Ev.

Lutheran Congregations in Pennsylvania as a lawful and regular presbyterium and ministerium and particularly as our pastors- and ministers-in-chief, also to respect and regard, them as such, without whose previously known advice and consent we do, order, resolve, or change nothing; hence to have nothing to do with any [other] pastor, nor even, without their previously known advice and consent, to undertake anything in important church-matters with the pastor whom they have sent to us; on the contrary, to approve of and with all our powers to observe and execute whatever, in church-matters of our own and the congregations, the whole Rev. College of Pastors will resolve, and properly indicate and make known to us. Furthermore we promise to recognize, receive, respect, honor and hear the teacher [minister] as our lawful and divinely called teacher as long as the Rev. College of Pastors will see fit to leave him with us; nor to make any opposition in case they should be pleased for important reasons to call him away and to put another in his place; moreover, to receive and regard his successor with equal love and duty. We furthermore promise, if (which G.o.d forfend) a misunderstanding or separation should arise between the whole congregation or part of it and the teacher, or between members of the congregation, to report this immediately to the Rev. College of Pastors, and to await their decision, and to abide by it." (301 f.) _Graebner:_ "One"s indignation is roused when reading how the elders of the Lancaster congregation were treated at the first synod. These men defended the by no means improper demand of their congregation that such as had fallen away to the sects and again returned should subscribe to the const.i.tution of the congregation before they once more were recognized as members. In spite of the opinion of the a.s.sembly and the utterly wrong admonition "to leave it to their pastor," the elders "adhered to their opinion." Immediately their conversion is questioned, and "all the elders who have not yet been thoroughly converted are admonished to convert themselves with all their heart." The remark of the minutes, "They kept silence," conveys the impression that the rebuke had been merited, and that the cut was felt." (320.) According to the const.i.tution for congregations, subscribed to October 18, 1762, by Muhlenberg and Handschuh and 270 members of their congregations, the grades of admonition and church discipline were: 1. admonition by the preacher alone; 2. admonition by the preacher in the presence of the elders and wardens; 3. expulsion before or by the whole church council.

(402.) The same const.i.tution contains the provision: If any deacon or elder who has been elected to perform this arduous duty refuses to accept the office without sufficient reasons, "he is not to be excused until he has made a considerable contribution to the church treasury."

(490.) At synod the pastors ruled supreme. The lay delegates, consisting of the elders of the congregations, merely reported to Synod, when asked, concerning the work, fidelity, and efficiency of their pastors, the parochial schools, etc., and presented requests to Synod. But they had no voice in her decisions. In the common a.s.sembly of the pastors and laymen no vote was taken. The _Lutheran Cyclopedia_ says: "The deliberations were exclusively those of the pastors, while the lay delegates were present only to furnish the needed information concerning local conditions and the fidelity of pastors." (493.) Furthermore, the ministerium, the college of pastors, conferred the office and made pastors through ordination, a rite considered essential to the ministry, and without which no one was regarded a lawful and full-fledged pastor.

Thus, for instance, in the case of J. A. Weygand it was held that he was given the right to perform all the functions pertaining to his office, not by the call of the congregation which he had accepted, but by his subsequent ordination. (432.)

50. Obedience to Ministerium and Fathers in Halle.--In the ordination the pastors were pledged to obey the Ministerium. In Weygand"s call the clause was embodied, "that he would submit to the investigation and judgment of the United Pastors and the Venerable Fathers" in Halle.

(452.) The manner in which Kurtz was bound appears from the following points of the "Revers" which he had to sign before his ordination in 1748: "2. To consider my congregation nothing but a part of the United Congregations. ... 4. To introduce no ceremonies into the public worship or into the administration of the Sacraments other than those which have been introduced by the College of Pastors of the United Congregations, also to use no other book of forms than the one which will be a.s.signed to me by them. 5. To undertake nothing of importance alone nor with the a.s.sistance of the church-council, except it have been previously communicated to the Reverend College of Pastors, and their opinion have been obtained, as well as to abide by their good counsel and advice. 6.

To render a verbal or written account of my pastorate at the demand of the Reverend College of Pastors. 7. To keep a diary and daybook and to record therein official acts and remarkable occurrences. 8. Should they call me hence, to accept the call, and not to resist." (305.) Before his ordination Pastor J. H. Schaum had to sign a "Revers" and, with a handclasp, seal the promise to the United Pastors that he as their adjunct "would be faithful and obedient to them." To the congregations the Ministerium did not only prescribe the liturgy, but appointed and removed their pastors as they saw fit. Pastor Schaum"s call to New York was signed by the four pastors, Muhlenberg, Brunnholtz, Handschuh, and Kurtz as their own vocation, in their own name, not in the name of the congregation. (327.) The congregation at Lancaster desired Kurtz as their pastor instead of Handschuh, whom the Ministerium was planning to send to them. Muhlenberg, however, reports: "We bade them consider this and demanded a short answer, giving them to understand that, if a single one of them would be restive and dissatisfied with our advice and arrangement, we would consent to give them neither the one nor the other, but would turn to the other congregations still vacant and leave the dust to them. They must consider it a special favor that we had come to them first." Graebner comments on this as follows: "One can safely say that there could be found to-day in all America not a single Lutheran pastor or congregation who would consent to concede to a synod such powers as Pastor Kurtz and the congregation at Tulpehocken yielded to the "United Pastors" in 1748." (321.) The superiors of the United Pastors and their congregations were the "Fathers in Europe." They had commissioned them, and to them they were responsible. All decisions of Synod in doctrinal, liturgical, and governmental questions were subject to the advice and approval of the authorities in Halle. When the church council of the congregation in Philadelphia sent a humble pet.i.tion to the Synod in 1750, requesting permission to retain the services of Pastor Brunnholtz for themselves, they received the answer: We have no right to make changes without the previous knowledge and permission of the "Fathers in Europe." (330.) In order to ordain Weygand, Muhlenberg had to get permission from the "Fathers in Europe." (432.) Even such pastors as Stoever and Wagner, who did not unite with the Ministerium, were by Muhlenberg designated as "such as had run of themselves," as "so-called pastors," who had "neither an inner nor an outward call," and "who were concerned about nothing but their daily bread." And why?

Because, according to Muhlenberg, they had not "been sent" (by the Ministerium or the Fathers); because they were not subject to a consistory, did not render account of their pastorates, and would not observe the same order with those who had come from Halle. (311.) Concerning Weygand, who arrived in 1748, Muhlenberg reports: "I asked him what he was now going to do in Pennsylvania, whether he intended to be for us or against us; if he desired to be with us, it would be necessary for us first to obtain permission from our Venerable Fathers.

If, however, he intended to be against us, he might come on, we entertained no fear, as we had already encountered such as had run of themselves. He answered, "G.o.d forfend!" He would not side with the Ministerium, to which men belonged like Valentine Kraft, Andrew Stoever, Wagner, and the like, though they had requested him to join them; that, on the other hand, he would not be in our way either, but rather go elsewhere and begin a school at some place or another." (431. 322.)

51. Const.i.tution of 1792.--The new const.i.tution, adopted by the Pennsylvania Synod in 1792, though granting a modified suffrage to lay delegates in all important questions, left the synod what it had been, a body governed by the clergy. Dr. Graebner says: "It has been pointed out how this [hierarchical] trait plainly appeared already when the Pennsylvania Synod was founded; later on we meet it everywhere and in all synods organized prior to the General Synod. According to the conception generally prevailing a synod had its real foundation, its essential part, not in the congregations, but in the preachers. This idea governed their thinking and speaking. The "preachers of the State of Ohio united with some of the preachers in Pennsylvania living nearest to them, and established a conference or synod of their own." Some "preachers west of the Susquehanna" were granted their pet.i.tion of being permitted to form a synod. In agreement herewith they preferred to speak of a synod according to its chief and fundamental part, as a "ministerium." The const.i.tution of the Pennsylvania Synod began: "We Evangelical Lutheran preachers in Pennsylvania and the neighboring States, by our signatures to this const.i.tution, acknowledging ourselves as a body, name this union of ours The German Evangelical Lutheran Ministerium in Pennsylvania and the neighboring States, and our individual meetings A Ministerial a.s.sembly." Lay delegates of the congregations, though admitted to the synodical conventions in Pennsylvania and at other places, were nowhere recognized as members having equal rights with the ministers. It was as late as 1792 that the lay delegates obtained the right to vote in Pennsylvania, and even then only with restrictions. In the affairs of greatest import (doctrinal matters, admission of new members, etc.) they were privileged neither to speak nor to vote. On this point the ministerial order of the Pennsylvania Synod declared: "Lay delegates who have a right to vote shall sit together at one place in the a.s.sembly; they are privileged to offer motions, and to give their opinion and cast their votes in all questions submitted for decision and determination, except in matters pertaining to the learning of a candidate or a catechist, to questions of orthodoxy and heterodoxy, the admission to, and expulsion from, the ministerium, and other, similar cases, for the ministerial a.s.sembly has cognizance of such as these." The const.i.tution of the New York Ministerium contained the same provision, chap. 7, --4: "Each lay delegate shall have a right to take part in the debates of the House, to offer resolutions, and to vote on all questions, except the examining, licensing, or ordaining of candidates for the ministry, the admission of ministers into the a.s.sociation or their exclusion from it, and the discussion of weighty articles of faith or cases of conscience." The right of a layman to vote was regarded as grounded in that of the minister, not the right of both in the congregation. When a minister lost his vote, the delegate of the congregation lost his too." The const.i.tution of the Pennsylvania Synod provided: Such lay delegates only "as have an ordained preacher or licensed candidate, and whose teacher is himself present," shall have a right to vote. Accordingly, "no more lay delegates can cast their votes than the number of ordained preachers and licensed candidates present." Furthermore, the resolutions of Synod were regarded as binding on the congregations. The const.i.tution of the Pennsylvania Ministerium provided, chap. 6, --14: "Whereas the United Congregations are represented in the synodical a.s.sembly by their delegates and have a seat and vote in it, they accordingly are bound willingly to observe the decisions and resolutions of the synodical a.s.sembly and of the ministerium." Chap. 7, --5 of the const.i.tution of the New York Ministerium read: "Every congregation which is represented by a delegate in the synods of this body is bound to receive, and submit to, the resolutions and recommendations of the ministerium, and to bear its part of all expenses and services necessary for the welfare of the a.s.sociated churches generally and the advancement of the common cause.

And if any congregation perseveres in refusing such submission, it shall no longer be ent.i.tled to a representation in this body." (693 ff.)

MUHLENBERG"S UNIONISM.

52. Att.i.tude toward Non-Lutherans.--In the _Lutheran Encyclopedia_ H.

E. Jacobs says in praise of Muhlenberg: "He knew how to combine width of view and cordiality of friendship towards those of other communions, with strict adherence to principle." (331.) Similar views had been expressed by Dr. W. J. Mann at the First Free Lutheran Diet at Philadelphia. In his "Theses on the Lutheranism of the Fathers of the Church in This Country" he said: "Their Lutheranism did not differ from the Lutheran orthodoxy of the preceding period, in the matter of doctrine, but to an extent in the manner of applying it. It was orthodoxy practically vitalized. They were less polemical and theoretical. Whilst tolerant toward those of other convictions, they were, however, neither indifferent nor unionistically inclined, and never conformed Lutheranism to any other form of Christianity, though in their days the pressure in this direction was heavy." (Spaeth, _C. P.

Krauth_, 1, 318.) However, though Muhlenberg"s intentions undoubtedly were to be and remain a Lutheran, his fraternal intercourse and intimate fellowship with the Reformed, Episcopalians, Methodists, and other denominations, was of a nature incompatible with true Lutheranism. He evidently regarded the various Christian communions as sister churches, who had practically the same divine right to exist and to propagate their distinctive views as the Lutheran Church. Such was the principle of indifferentism on which Muhlenberg based his practise of fraternal recognition and fellowship. The natural and inevitable result of his relations with the sects was that the free, open, and necessary confession of Lutheran truth over against Reformed error was weakened and m.u.f.fled, and finally smothered and entirely silenced and omitted.

Nor can it be denied that Muhlenberg, by this unionism and indifferentism, wasted and corrupted much of the rich blessings which G.o.d bestowed, and purposed to bestow, on the American Lutheran Church through him. Like Dr. Wrangel and the Swedes in Delaware generally, Muhlenberg and his a.s.sociates entertained the opinion that especially the Lutherans and Episcopalians were not separated by any essential doctrinal differences. Indeed, the Germans in Pennsylvania, like the Swedes in Delaware, seem at times to have seriously considered a union between the Episcopalians and the Lutherans. In brief, Muhlenberg"s att.i.tude toward the Reformed and other sects was of a nature which cannot be justified as Lutheran nor construed as non-unionistic in character.

53. The Facts in the Case.--From the very beginning to the end of his activity in America the practise of Muhlenberg was not free from indifferentism and unionism. Already on his voyage across the ocean he had conducted services according to the Book of Common Prayer. (G., 322.) November 25, 1742, Muhlenberg had arrived in Philadelphia, and on December 28th of the same year he wrote in his journal: "In the afternoon I visited the English pastor of the Episcopal Church. He was very cordial, and informed me that he had always been a good friend of our Lutheran brethren, the Swedish missionaries, and desired to be on friendly terms also with me." (267.) In 1743 Muhlenberg signified his willingness to build a union church with the Reformed in case they were willing to shoulder their part of the expenses. (272.) In 1751 he reported from New York: "May 31, I visited Mr. Barclay, the most prominent pastor of the Anglican Church, whom the Archbishop has appointed commissioner of the province of New York. . . . The Dutch Reformed have at present four pastors. I called on the oldest of them, Mr. Du Bois, who received me cordially. Thereupon I visited the youngest of the Dutch Reformed Ministerium. I visited also the third member of this body, who, together with his wife, carried on a beautiful and edifying conversation, so that I was truly delighted." (421.) "June 28, I visited Mr. Pemberton, the pastor of the English Presbyterian congregation, for the first time. He was much pleased with my short call, and remarked that he had received a letter from Pastor Tennent in Philadelphia, who had mentioned my name and advised him to cultivate my company. Almost immediately he began to speak of the sainted Professor Francke, saying that he had read several of his Latin works. Besides this we had several other edifying conversations. Upon my departure he asked me to visit him frequently." (422.) "July 22, my host and I drove to the oldest Reformed pastor, who gave us a cordial reception. In the afternoon we visited one of the elders of my congregation. In the evening the younger Reformed pastor visited me." (425.) "On the 23d I again preached in Dutch on the opening verses of the fifth chapter of Matthew. The two Reformed pastors and a large number of people were present." (425.) "August 17, I preached a penitential sermon and had confession. The church was filled with Lutherans and Reformed, among whom was also the younger pastor." (428.) "August 21, the members of the congregation who live near by, several Reformed neighbors, and a number of friends of New York a.s.sembled to hear my farewell sermon at that place." (420.) "May 11, our Dutch congregation-members who live near by, and some Reformed neighbors, were invited to attend an hour of edification." (434.) "In the afternoon I bade farewell to the younger Reformed pastor." (439.) "Early on Tuesday morning the Reformed Pastor Schlatter came to my home and embraced me after the custom of our old and unfeigned love." (439.) "In the evening I was called to the six Reformed pastors who had arrived. I went and welcomed them with the words: "Behold I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves; be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves." July 30, I was taken to the pious English merchant, as he had some awakened souls with him.

They sang a psalm, read a chapter from a devotional book, and in conclusion urged me to pray. After the dear souls had returned to their homes, I remained with him and had a very delightful and edifying conversation with him and his pious wife." (440.) Muhlenberg praises the Episcopalian Richard Peters as a "moderate theologian," possessed of a "catholic spirit," and reports in 1760: "On the ninth and tenth of August Mr. Richard Peters, secretary of the province and president of the Academy in Philadelphia, visited me in Providence. In the morning he attended our German service, with which, he said, he was greatly delighted. In the afternoon he himself delivered a very solid and edifying sermon to a large audience." (516.) After his removal to Philadelphia, in 1761, Muhlenberg wrote: "On Monday, March 16, I intended quietly to leave the city. However, Provost Wrangel as well as some of the elders accompanied me, the former as far as the home of Pastor Schlatter, where we were hospitably received and entertained for the night." (380.) On the services conducted at Barren Hill on Easter Monday, 1762, Muhlenberg reports as follows: "After my sermon Pastor Schlatter added a short admonition, impressing upon them what they had already heard." (517.) "On Monday, May 25, I went out in the forenoon to visit some English friends. As I happened to pa.s.s by the English High Church at eleven o"clock, I was called into the manse, where I found a numerous a.s.sembly of the honorable English missionaries, who were conducting their annual meeting. They took me to church with them, showed me unmerited honor, and permitted me to attend their session as a friend and witness." (380.) May 21, 1762, Muhlenberg noted in his diary: "At noon I was with Mr. R., who related with joy how he, Mr. D., and Provost Wrangel, together with the new Swedish pastor, Mr. Wicksel, and the Reformed pastor, Schlatter, had yesterday, on Ascension Day, attended the new church, where they had heard two splendid and edifying sermons in German and English delivered to two large audiences." (383.) October 16, 1763, he wrote: "Pastor Handschuh was called upon to bury a Reformed woman who died in childbirth; he delivered the sermon in the old Reformed church." On October 18, 1763, during the sessions of Synod, and at its request, Whitefield preached in the pulpit of Muhlenberg. In 1767 J. S. Gerock dedicated his new church in New York, "a.s.sisted by different High German and English Protestant pastors and teachers," H.

M. Muhlenberg and Hartwick also preaching. (444.) When Muhlenberg dedicated his new Zion Church in Philadelphia, on June 25, 1769, the professors of the Academy as well as the Episcopalian and Presbyterian pastors were invited. The report says: "The second English pastor, Mr.

d.u.c.h.ee, opened the services by reading the English prayers, the Prorector of the Academy offered an appropriate prayer, and Commissioner Peters delivered a splendid sermon on the song of the angels, Luke 2, whereupon Rector Muhlenberg, in the name of the corporation and congregation, thanked the honorable a.s.sembly, in English, for their favor and kindness in honoring this newly erected church and conducting a service there." May 27, 1770, Whitefield, upon invitation, also preached in the new church. (518.) Without a word of censure on the part of his father, or of protest on the part of Synod, Peter Muhlenberg, in 1772, at London, subscribed to the Thirty-nine Articles and received Episcopal ordination, in order to be able to perform legal marriage ceremonies within his congregations in Virginia. Invited by the Presbyterian pastor, W. Tennent, Muhlenberg, Sr., preached in his church on two occasions while at Charleston, in 1774. (578.) At Savannah he preached in the union church of the Reformed Pastor Zuebli, and in the Lutheran church at Savannah he enjoyed the sermon of a Methodist pastor.

(518.) At the church dedication in Pikestown, in 1775, he preached in German, and an Episcopalian, Mr. Currie, in English, etc.

54. Whitefield in Muhlenberg"s Pulpit.--"The pastors of the first period of the Ministerium," says Dr. Jacobs, "were on friendly relations with Whitefield. Dr. Wrangel interested himself in securing for him an invitation to meet with the members of the Ministerium during the sessions of 1763. In urging this proposition, Wrangel did not forget the collections which Whitefield had made in Europe for the impoverished Salzburgers. The presence of a man who had pleaded eloquently in English pulpits for contributions to build Lutheran churches in Georgia, and with that eminent success which Benjamin Franklin has noted in a well-known pa.s.sage in his autobiography, certainly deserved recognition, even apart from Whitefield"s services in awakening life in the Church of England and in America. He was present at the examination of the children of St. Michael"s Church before the synod, made a fervent prayer and an edifying address. On the next day he bade the synod farewell, and requested the prayers of its members. The next year he was in attendance at the funeral of Pastor Handschuh. In 1770 (May 27) he preached by special invitation in Zion Church." (286.) In his report, dated October 15, 1763, on the synod of the same year, Muhlenberg himself says: "It was also considered, whether we should not invite Mr. Whitefield and the two well-disposed preachers of the Episcopal Church for Monday and Tuesday, especially to the examination of the children. Among other reasons Dr. Wrangel mentioned the fact that Whitefield had a.s.sisted our poor suffering brethren in Georgia [Salzburgers] with collections. In the evening Dr. Wrangel took me to Mr. Whitefield, and in the name of the Ministerium we invited him together with the rector of the High Church, who was present." October 16, Muhlenberg wrote: "After the services Dr. Wrangel, Pastor Handschuh, and three trustees went to Mr.

Whitefield and asked him if on the morrow he would attend our examination in the church, and speak a word of admonition to the children. He answered: Yes, if his weakness permitted, and such were G.o.d"s gracious will." October 18, Muhlenberg wrote: "Mr. Whitefield ascended the pulpit, and said a hearty and powerful prayer. Hereupon he addressed himself to the children, delivering, with tears and deep emotion, a condescending sermon about pious children of the Old and New Testaments, together with some modern examples which he had himself experienced, and finally enjoined upon parents their duties. After this the children were examined by Dr. Wrangel, and then, in German, by me.

Whitefield, however, being very weak in body, and the church being very crowded, we discontinued and closed with a piece of church music. The pastors and other delegates, the elders and deacons took dinner in the school, the old Mr. Tennent [Episcopalian], who was given the place of honor, delighting us with edifying conversation." October 19, Muhlenberg wrote: "At four o"clock Mr. George Whitefield visited our Ministerium in the school, bidding us an affectionate farewell, and requesting us to intercede for him before the throne of grace." Dr. Graebner remarks: "A misstep as serious as this, admitting an errorist like Whitefield to the pulpit of the local pastor and synodical president, such as was done at this synodical meeting, had, at least, not been made before the time of Wrangel." (383 ff.) Concerning his fellowship with Whitefield in 1770, Muhlenberg made the following entries in his journal: "Friday, May 25...

Because I could not do otherwise, I wrote a few lines to Rev. Mr.

Whitefield, stating that if he would preach for me on next Sunday night in Zion Church, it would be acceptable to me." "Sunday, May 27.... Early in the evening Zion Church was filled with people of all sorts of religion, both German and English. We two preachers went to Mr.

Whitefield"s lodging and took him with us to the church, which was so crowded that we had to take him in through the steeple-door.... He complained of a cold contracted at the morning service, and consequent hoa.r.s.eness, but preached very acceptably from 2 Chron. 7, 1 on "The Outer and the Inner Glory of the House of G.o.d." He introduced some impressive remarks concerning our fathers--Francke and Ziegenhagen, etc." (Jacobs, 287.) At the First Lutheran Diet, Dr. C. P. Krauth explained: "Whitefield was an evangelist of forgotten or ignored doctrines of the Gospel; a witness excluded from many pulpits of his own church because of his earnestness in preaching the truth; in some sense a martyr. This invested him with interest in the eyes of our fathers, and his love to the Lutheran Church and his services to it made him very dear." (287.)

55. Experiencing the Consequences.--From what has been said it is evident that Muhlenberg"s relations with the sects was not without reprehensible unionism. Even where, in such fellowship, syncretism was not directly practised, the proper confession of Lutheran truth was omitted. As with the Swedes in Delaware, fraternal intercourse proceeded on the silent understanding that the sore spot of doctrinal differences must be carefully avoided. For Lutherans, however, this was tantamount to a denial of the truth. Muhlenberg set an example the influence of which was all the more pernicious by reason of the high esteem in which he was held by the members of Synod, who revered him as a father. As late as 1866 the Pennsylvania Synod defended its intercourse with the Reformed Synod "as a measure introduced by the fathers in the time of Muhlenberg and Schlatter." And the unionistic practises indulged in by the General Synod throughout its history cannot but be viewed as the fruits of the tree first planted by the Halle emissaries. Nor could they fail to see the abyss into which such unionism must finally lead, as it was apparent already in the history of the Swedes. That Muhlenberg had a presentiment whither things were drifting appears from his warning in 1783 to J. L. Voigt not to open his pulpit to Methodist preachers.

(516.) Indeed, Muhlenberg himself lived to see the first bitter fruits of his dalliance with the sects. Four months before his end, June 6, 1787, Franklin College, at Lancaster, was solemnly opened as a German High School and a union theological seminary for Lutherans, Reformed, and a number of other sects. H. E. Muhlenberg delivered the sermon at the opening exercises, which were attended by the entire synod. The name of the inst.i.tution was chosen in view of the virtues and merits of Benjamin Franklin, who had contributed 200 Pounds. The College had forty-five trustees, consisting of 15 Lutherans, 15 Reformed, and 15 chosen from other communions. A director was to be chosen alternately from the Lutheran and from the Reformed Church. Among the first trustees were J. H. C. Helmuth and other Lutheran pastors. Two of the first four teachers were Lutherans: Pastor H. E. Muhlenberg, the first director, and Pastor F. W. Melsheimer. (515.) Dr. A. Spaeth, agreeing with W. J.

Mann, says: "Sooner or later the whole Lutheran Church of America should and could unite on the position of Muhlenberg." (252.) We would not detract from the merit of Muhlenberg. The slogan of the American Lutheran Church, however, dare never be: "Back to Muhlenberg!" "Back to Halle!" but "Back to Wittenberg!" "Back to Luther! Back to Lutheran sincerity, determination, and consistency both in doctrine and practise!"

TRAINING OF MINISTERS AND TEACHERS NEGLECTED.

56. Parish Schools Cultivated.--One cannot possibly say too much in praise of the missionary zeal on the part of Muhlenberg and his a.s.sociates and of their unceasing efforts to establish new mission-posts and organize new congregations, and to obtain additional laborers from Europe, notably from Halle. In a large measure this applies also to their labors in the interest of establishing parochial schools. In fact, wherever we read of early Lutherans in America, especially German Lutherans, there we also hear the cry for schools and schoolteachers to instruct the children. Comparatively weak efforts to establish schools for their children were made by the Swedes in Delaware. At Christina a teacher was employed in 1699; in Wicaco Teacher Hernboom began a school in 1713. The minutes of the Pennsylvania Synod of 1762 record: "In the Swedish congregations the Swedish schools have for several generations been regrettably neglected; Dr. Wrangel, however, has started an English school in one of his congregations in which the Lutheran Catechism is read in an English translation." Acrelius, who had been provost of the Swedes in Delaware, wrote in 1759: "Forty years back our people scarcely knew what a school was. The first Swedish and Holland settlers were a poor, weak, and ignorant people, who brought up their children in the same ignorance." The result was great ignorance among the Swedes.

_Jacobs:_ "There seems to have been an entire dearth of laymen capable of intelligently partic.i.p.ating in the administration of the affairs of the congregation until we come to Peter k.o.c.k. Eneberg found at Christina that "of the vestrymen and elders of the parish there was scarcely any one who could write his own name."" (104.) The Salzburgers had a school in Ebenezer, and later a second school in the country. At the beginning Bolzius and Gronau gave daily instruction in religion, the one four, the other three hours daily. In 1741 Ortmann and an English teacher instructed the youth at Ebenezer. The Palatinates in New York began with the building, not only of a church, but also of a school in 1710, the very year in which they had settled at West Camp. In New York there was a schoolhouse as well as a church, and a "schoolkeeper"

(_Schulhalter_) was employed. When the teacher disappeared, the schoolhouse was rented out, but Berkenmeyer taught the children in his home for five months in a year, three times a week. Also in North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, etc., parish schools were established, and the great need of them explained to and urged upon the people by the conferences and ministers. In Pennsylvania there were several German schools even before the arrival of Muhlenberg; as a rule, however, the teachers were incompetent or immoral, or both. (247.) When, in 1734, Daniel Weisiger, one of the representatives of the congregations at Philadelphia, New Hanover, and Providence, made his appearance in Halle, he asked for both an able and pious preacher and a schoolteacher. In the beginning Muhlenberg himself took charge of the school. In January, 1743, he wrote: "Because there is a great ignorance among the youth of this land and good schoolteachers are so very rare, I shall be compelled to take hold of the work myself. Those who possibly could teach the youth to read are lazy and drunken, compile a sermon from all manner of books, run about, preach, and administer the Lord"s Supper for hard cash. Miserable and disgusting, indeed! I announced to the people [at Providence] to send first their oldest children for instruction, as I intended to remain with the congregation eight days at a time. On Monday some of the parents brought their children. It certainly looks depressing when children of seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty years come with the Abc-Book. Yet I am delighted that they are possessed of so great a desire to learn something," etc. "In Providence," Muhlenberg wrote later on, "I have a splendid young man, who keeps school in winter, and in summer earns his living by doing manual labor." In 1745 J. N. Kurtz and J. H. Schaum were sent from Halle to take charge of the youth. One of the chief questions to engage the attention of the first convention of the Pennsylvania Synod, in 1748, was: "What is the condition of the parish schools?" Brunnholtz reported: In his home at Philadelphia, Schaum, whom he supported, had been keeping school for three and a half years; since Easter there had been no school, as Schaum was needed at another place; however, before winter would set in, he and his elders would do their best in this matter. Germantown, continued Brunnholtz, had two teachers, Doeling, a former Moravian, being one of them, whose schools were attended by many children, some of them non-Lutherans. Another school near Germantown with twenty children had been closed for lack of a teacher. Muhlenberg stated: In Providence there had been a small school in the past year. New Hanover had a fair school, Jacob Loeser being teacher. Though a teacher could be had for the filials Sacc.u.m and Upper Milford, there were no schools there. When the elders hereupon explained that the distances were too great, Synod advised to change off monthly with the teacher, and demanded an answer in this matter in the near future. Kurtz promised to begin a school at Tulpehocken in winter. Handschuh reported: In Lancaster the school was flourishing; Teacher Schmidt and his a.s.sistant Vigera had instructed 70 children. At the meeting of Synod in 1753 the pastors complained: "The schools within our congregations are in a very poor state, since able and faithful teachers are rare, salaries utterly insufficient, the members too widely scattered and in most cases poor, roads too bad in winter, and the children too urgently needed on the farms in summer."

(G., 496.) According to the report of the Synod held in 1762 there were parochial schools in New Providence, one main school and several smaller ones; in New Hanover; in Philadelphia, where a public examination during the sessions of Synod exhibited the efficiency of the school; in Vincent Township, a school with a good teacher and 60 children; in Reading, a school with more than 80 children; in Tulpehocken, a school of 40 children; in Heidelberg, a school of 30 children; in Northkeel, 30 children, taught by Pastor Kurtz; in Lancaster, a school of 60 children in summer and 90 in winter, etc. (495.)

57. Dearth of Pastors and Schoolteachers.--From the very beginning one of the greatest obstacles to the spread and healthy growth of the Lutheran Church in America was the dearth of well-trained, able, and truly Lutheran pastors and schoolteachers. And the greatest of all mistakes of the early builders of the American Zion was the failure to provide for the crying need of laborers by the only proper and effectual means--the establishment of American seminaries for the training of truly Lutheran pastors and teachers qualified to serve in American surroundings. The growing indifferentism and deterioration of the Lutheran ministry as well as of the Lutheran congregations was a necessary consequence of this neglect, which resulted in an inadequate service, rendered, to a large extent, by incompetent or heterodox ministers. Dr. Mann was right when he maintained in his _Plea for the Augsburg Confession_ of 1856, that the doctrinal aberrations of the Definite Platform theologians were due, in part, to the fact that S. S.

Schmucker and other ministers had received their theological education at Princeton and other non-Lutheran schools. The constantly increasing need, coupled with the insufficient preparation of the men willing to serve, led to the pernicious system of licensing, which for many decades became a permanent inst.i.tution in Pennsylvania and other States. In 1857 the General Synod adopted the following report: "The committee on the Licensure System respectfully report that the action of this body requesting the several District Synods to take into consideration and report their judgment on the proposed alteration or abolition of our Licensure System has been responded to by fifteen synods. Out of this number all the synods, excepting three, have decided against a change.

Your committee have to report the judgment of the Church to be decidedly against any change of our long-established regulations on this subject, and therefore deem it unnecessary to enter on the discussion of the merits of the subject, in this report, and propose the adoption of the following resolution: Resolved, That the great majority of our Synods having expressed their judgment against any change in our Licensure System, your committee be released from the further consideration of the subject." (20.) The great dearth of ministers accounted for this action.

Even before 1727 there were in Pennsylvania more than 50,000 Germans. In 1751 Benjamin Franklin expressed his apprehension that "the Palatine boors" would Germanize Pennsylvania. In 1749 more than 12,000 German emigrants arrived. In 1750 the Germans in Pennsylvania numbered about 80,000, almost one-half of the inhabitants of the State. And more than one-half of these were considered Lutherans. In 1811, however, when this number had greatly increased, the Pennsylvania Synod reported only 64 ministers, of whom 34 were ordained, 26 were licensed to preach, and 4 were catechists. The number of ministers sent from Germany had been augmented by such as had been tutored by pastors in America. Chr. Streit and Peter Muhlenberg, for example, were instructed by Provost Wrangel and Muhlenberg, Sr. Another pupil of Muhlenberg was Jacob van Buskirk.

H. Moeller, D. Lehman, and others had studied under J. C. Kunze. Jacob Goering, J. Bachman, C. F. L. Endress, J. G. Schmucker, Miller, and Baetis were pupils of J. H. Ch. Helmuth. H. A. Muhlenberg, who subsequently became prominent in politics, and B. Keller were educated in Franklin College. Later on some attended Princeton and other Reformed schools to prepare themselves for the Lutheran ministry! To make matters worse, the ministers who, toward the close of the eighteenth century, came from Germany were no longer adapted for their surroundings, which were rapidly becoming English. Besides, Halle and the other German universities had grown rationalistic. According to the Report of the General Synod in 1823 the Lutheran Church in America numbered 900 churches with only 175 ministers. (9.) The same report states: "The ancient and venerable Synod of Pennsylvania is rapidly increasing both in members and in ministers, and we trust that much good is doing in the name of our blessed Savior Jesus. From the minutes of the session of the present year, which was held at Lebanon, it appears that the body consists of 74 ministers, who have the pastoral charge of upwards of 278 churches; that between the session of 1822 and 1823 they admitted to membership by baptism 6,445, admitted to sacramental communion by confirmation 2,750, that the whole number of communicants is 24,794, and that there are under the superintendence of the different churches 208 congregational schools." (11.) In 1843, according to the _Lutheran Almanac_ for that year, the General Synod numbered 424 ordained and licensed pastors and 1,374 congregations with 146,303 communicants. This averaged three congregations for every pastor, some serving as many as six, eight, or even twelve, giving the majority of the congregations one service every four weeks, and to many only one service every eight weeks. (_Kirchl. Mitt. 1843, No. 11.) In 1853 about 9,000 Lutheran congregations in the United States were served by only 900 pastors.

(_Lutheraner,_ 10, 31.) Thus, as the years rolled on, the question became increasingly pressing: "Where shall we find pastors for our children?" Yet, while the Lutheran ministers, as a rule, were most zealous and self-sacrificing in their labors to serve and gather the scattered Lutherans, organize congregations, and establish parochial schools, the early history of American Lutheranism does not record a single determined effort anywhere to provide in a systematic way for the training of preachers and teachers, such as were required by American conditions and surroundings. We hear of an orphan home founded by the Salzburgers in 1737 with three boys and eight girls, but nowhere of a seminary turning out preachers and teachers for the maintenance and upbuilding of the Church. It was in 1864, more than 120 years after the first appearance of Muhlenberg in Pennsylvania, that the "Mother Synod"

of the Lutheran Church in America founded a seminary in Philadelphia.

58. Hopeless Situation.--Several years after his arrival in America, Muhlenberg realized the need and conceived the thought of founding an orphan asylum with a preachers" seminary in connection; and in 1748 he had acquired the ground for this purpose. In his letters to Halle he repeatedly declared that it would be impossible to supply "the almost innumerable mult.i.tude of German Lutherans" with pastors for any length of time without a seminary in America. In one of these letters he says: "An inst.i.tution of this kind does not appear to be impossible. And it seems to be necessary, because, as the past experience has taught us, the calling of well-tried and able preachers from Germany, though indeed of especial advantage, and needed also in the future, at least for a considerable time, is connected with so many difficulties and such great expense that it will be impossible to send over as many from Germany as will be required in order to provide sufficiently for all congregations." (504.) In 1769 Muhlenberg broached the matter to the convention of the Ministerium, and Synod repeatedly considered the question. But nothing materialized. Indeed, J. C. Kunze, who later became Muhlenberg"s son-in-law, finally did succeed in opening a preparatory school; lack of funds, however, compelled him to close it during the Revolutionary War. Kunze, Helmuth, and J. F. Schmidt now pinned their hopes to the "German Inst.i.tute" of the Pennsylvania University, whose professors were Lutherans from 1779 to 1822. Helmuth instructed every day from eight to twelve and from two to five o"clock.

But the "German Inst.i.tute" did not turn out any Lutheran pastors, as the curriculum contained no course in theology. Kunze writes: "It is true, I was professor of Oriental languages in Philadelphia. However, I had but six scholars, and I doubt if one of them will study theology.

And who would instruct them, in case they should desire to study theology? We did not have time to devote a single hour to this subject in Philadelphia." In 1785 Helmuth and Schmidt wrote: "There is nothing we pastors desire more than a German educational inst.i.tution, where young men could be prepared directly for the service of the Church. To be sure, we have part in the university located here, and also make use of it. But languages and philosophy only are taught here, from which our churches and schools derive no benefit." The hopelessness of the situation is further revealed by the following letter which Helmuth addressed to the synod a.s.sembled in Lancaster, Pa., 1784: "Brethren, we are living in a sad time. My heart weeps over the awful decay of Christendom. I readily acknowledge my share of the guilt that G.o.d seems to hide His countenance from us, permitting the doors to stand wide open, for the spirit of lies [rationalism] to enter and destroy the vineyard of the Lord. You will learn from the report from Halle how the swine are uprooting the garden of Christ in Germany. . . . Another thing, dearest brethren, how shall we in the future supply our congregations with pastors? Where shall we find ministers to meet our need, which will increase from time to time! From Germany? Possibly a secret Arian, Socinian, or Deist? For over there everything is full of this vermin. G.o.d forbid! Under present circ.u.mstances, no one from Germany! We ourselves must put our hands to the plow. G.o.d will call us to account for it, and will let our children suffer for it, if we do not wake up, and hazard something for the weal of immortal souls."--And how did they now seek to provide help? Franklin College was founded in conjunction with the German Reformed and other sects! Helmuth and other Lutheran pastors were among the trustees of the inst.i.tution. In an appeal to the Lutheran congregations they say: "Where will you at last find pastors and teachers if you do not send your children to college?

. . . Think you that your churches and schools can exist without them?

Either your children will have to content themselves with the poorest kind of men, or else surrender language and religion, for which you have laid the foundation, thus loading a great guilt upon yourselves. Dear friends, German church-life can impossibly continue to exist as it has. .h.i.therto existed in many places. In a few years the churches you already have will be deserted. And what will then become of the increased number of Germans dwelling in your midst? Are there not already a great number of localities where the inhabitants hear no sermon for six to eight weeks, and where the young grow up like the savages?" (515. 530.) The Synod of 1818 also staked its hopes on Franklin College, which, however, was eking out a pitiable existence, and finally became the exclusive property of the Reformed. The dire need was apparent to all; the true way out of the difficulty, however, no one saw nor wanted to see. And the reason? Avarice on the part of the congregations, and a lack of initiative and Lutheran earnestness and determination on the part of the pastors. Nor did the seminaries founded in the first part of the nineteenth century (Hartwick Seminary, established in 1815; Gettysburg Seminary, in 1825; and the seminary of the South Carolina Synod, in 1829, at Lexington) meet the needs of the Church, either as to the quant.i.ty or the quality of the candidates required for the Lutheran ministry. In a letter addressed to the General Synod, a.s.sembled 1827 at Gettysburg, Dr. Hazelius wrote: "Our [Hartwick] Seminary has been established since the year 1815; during which time 11 young men have received their theological education here, 10 of whom are now actively engaged as laborers in the vineyard of our Lord; but one is prevented by disease from partic.i.p.ating in the labors of his brethren." (20.) All told, 10 preachers produced by Lutheran seminaries in the United States till 1827! Besides, in reality these seminaries were not Lutheran, but unionistic and, in a degree, Reformed schools.

DETERIORATION OF MOTHER SYNOD.

59. Descent Increasingly Swift.--The Lutheran Church has always held that, as faith cannot and must not be coerced, the broadest tolerance as to matters of conscience and religion should govern the policy of the State everywhere. On the other hand, the Lutheran Church maintains that, as truth is absolutely intolerant of error, and error is the direct denial of truth, the Christian Church dare not in any shape or manner give recognition to false teaching, but, on the contrary, is bound always to reject it and to confess G.o.d"s truth alone. Indifferentism as to false doctrine and practise has ever proved to be the most deadly foe of true Lutheranism, which, essentially, is but another name for consistent Christianity. Lutheranism and doctrinal indifferentism are just as destructive mutually as are truth and falsehood. Also the history of the Pennsylvania Synod offers ample proof of this law. In the days of Muhlenberg, Lutherans began to doubt that their doctrinal position, as presented in the Lutheran Symbols, alone is of divine right in the Christian Church, and alone in complete keeping with the Scriptures. Then they began to defend themselves as also being in the right and standing for truth; then, to apologize for their presence in America; then, to be ashamed of themselves and publicly to deny the distinctive tenets of Lutheranism; and, finally, to oppose its doctrines, champion their counterpart, and practically embrace sectarianism. Muhlenberg had lived to see the beginning of the end of true Lutheranism when Franklin College was opened. The descent was increasingly swift. In 1792 the confession of the Lutheran Symbols was omitted in the new const.i.tution of the Ministerium. And when, under the influence of Quitman, the New York Ministerium became rationalistic, the Pennsylvania Synod made no protest, administered no rebuke, and did not sever its fraternal relations with it. Moreover, in a measure, they opened their own doors to Rationalism; the German language was regarded as being of greater import than faithful adherence to the Lutheran Confessions; and refuge against the inroads of Rationalism and the English language was sought in a union with the German Reformed and the German Moravians. The utter degeneration of the Pennsylvania Synod appears from the new Agenda, concerning which Synod resolved in 1818 that it be introduced in all German congregations of the Ministerium.

In this Book there were embodied also forms designed to satisfy the Rationalists. Two of the forms for administering the Sacrament of Baptism contained no confession of faith. The confession to the Lutheran Church was stricken from the form for Confirmation. In two of the forms for the administration of the Lord"s Supper the Union formula of distribution was employed, _viz_., "Jesus says: Take and eat--Jesus says: Take and drink ye all of it," etc. The second form contained the following general invitation: "In the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Master, I say to all who acknowledge Him as their Savior, and are determined to be His faithful followers: You are welcome at this Feast of Love." (669.) The second formula for burials had a rationalistic tang. And the formulas of ordination and licensure no longer demanded adherence to the Lutheran Confessions. (669.)

60. Intrenching behind the German Language.--The Christian Church, hence also the Lutheran Church, views every language, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, as well as German and English, not as an end, but always as a means only toward furthering her real end, the regeneration and salvation of souls. According to Loehe"s _Kirchliche Mitteilungen_ of 1845, No. 5, a German emigrant wrote shortly after his arrival in America: "I cannot sufficiently thank G.o.d for the grace bestowed upon me; for when I for the first time heard the language of Canaan [English], the language of the New Jerusalem, I was immediately and deeply moved by the Spirit of G.o.d and was caught like tinder." This was certainly not the att.i.tude of the German Lutheran ministers of the Pennsylvania Synod, some of whom, going to the other extreme, were in danger of viewing the English, as compared with the German, as impregnated with the spirit of rationalism and infidelity. Riding, as it were, on the language, rationalism had made its public entry into the New York Ministerium. The real cause, however, was not the language, but the indifferentism and unionism prevailing within this body, which long ago had paved the way for, indeed, had itself bred, religious unbelief.

However, mistaking what was merely accidental and a concomitant for the chief and real cause of the calamity in the New York Ministerium, prominent German ministers of the Pennsylvania Synod, in order to guard against a similar turn of events in their own midst, frantically opposed the use of the English language in the Synod and her congregations, and placed such emphasis on the German as made it an end _per se_ peculiar to the Lutheran Church rather than a means employed wherever and whenever the conditions call for it in order to attain her real and supreme object--the saving of souls. Men like J. H. C. Helmuth and J.

F. Schmidt, in a way, identified English and Rationalism, German and Lutheranism (that is to say, unionistic Evangelicalism). Lamenting the inroads that Rationalism was making also in Lutheran congregations, they wrote: "But now the Protestant churches are threatened by a terrible storm, which is not the mere consequence of the natural course of things, but a _sign of this time_, and it will soon despoil them of the treasures of their Church together with all their happiness, unless teachers and parents will counteract it with united strength. Almost universally, especially in the cities and at the boundaries, they are beginning to educate the children exclusively in the English language, and, in a manner for which they will not be able to answer, to neglect them as regards the German services. This is the consequence of the indifference and the disregard of sound doctrine which, in the present hour of great temptation, is spreading over the face of the earth." But instead of stemming the tide of Rationalism by returning to Lutheran faithfulness, they ignored the Lutheran Confessions and intrenched themselves behind the German language and the "brethren" in the German Reformed and German Moravian churches. The general church-prayer of the Agenda of 1786, universally introduced in the congregations of the Pennsylvania Synod, contained the pa.s.sage: "And since it has pleased Thee [G.o.d] to transform this State [Pennsylvania] into a blooming garden, the deserts into delightful meadows, grant that we may not forget our nation, but strive to have our dear youth educated in such a manner that German churches and schools may not only be maintained, but brought to a flourishing condition, ever increasing." (404.) In 1812 the _Evangelisches Magazin_ appeared "under the auspices of the German Evangelical Lutheran Synod," Pastors Helmuth and Schmidt being the editors. Its avowed purpose, however, was not to represent Lutheranism, but specifically to bolster up the cause of the German and to oppose the introduction of the English language. The "Proposal to Synod" concerning the new German paper states: "1. We want to aid the German language as much as we can, because we are convinced that, with her language, our Church will lose unspeakably much, and, finally, for the most part, even her very existence under her [Lutheran] name. 2. We know the days of the great apostasy in Europe. . . . Also this devouring monster could be counteracted by a well-arranged _Evangelisches Magazin_." (544.) In 1813 the _Magazin_ contained a series of articles urging the Reformed and Lutherans to stand together against all attempts at introducing English.

The English language, it is said, is too poor to furnish an adequate translation of the German prayers and hymns and books of devotion.

English congregations could not remain either Lutheran or Reformed, because "our religious writings are all German." Revealing his Utopian dreams, the writer continues: "What would Philadelphia be in forty years if the Germans there were to remain German, and retain their language and customs? It would not be forty years until Philadelphia would be a German city, just as York and Lancaster are German counties. . . . What would be the result throughout Pennsylvania and Northern Maryland in forty or fifty years? An entirely German State, where, as formerly in Germantown, the beautiful German language would be used in the legislative halls and the courts of justice." (Jacobs, 330.) In 1805 the Pennsylvania Synod resolved that "this Ministerium must remain a German-speaking body"--a resolution which, especially in Philadelphia, merely served to increase the humiliating and damaging language-strife which had begun several decades before.

UNIONISM IN THE ASCENDENCY.

61. Seeking Refuge with the Reformed.--In their struggle against Rationalism and the English language the German Lutherans of Pennsylvania sought help in an alliance with the German Reformed and the Moravians. Fellowship between them became increasingly intimate. "Luther and Zwingli," they boasted harmoniously, "opened the eyes of the world!"

"After all," they kept on saying, "there is but one faith, one Baptism, one Supper, no matter how much the Lutheran and Reformed views on it may be at variance." (539.) One of the objects of the German _Evangelical Magazine_ evidently was to bring about a more intimate union between all German Evangelical bodies. For this reason it was not called "Lutheran,"

but "Evangelical." The preface to the first volume declared: "Our undertaking would be greatly furthered if the brethren of other communions would beautify it with their pious contributions, and also solicit subscriptions. The brethren of the Moravian Unity have expressed their satisfaction with this imperfect work, and a.s.sured us of their abiding love in this point." (544.) In view of the celebration of the Reformation Jubilee, the Ministerium of Pennsylvania, at York, June 2, 1817, resolved that the German Reformed, Moravian, Episcopal, and Presbyterian churches be invited by our President to take part with us in the festival of the Reformation. In the following year the unionistic and rationalistic Agenda characterized above was adopted by the Ministerium. A committee was also appointed to confer with the German Reformed, and to devise plans for utilizing Franklin College as a theological seminary, in order to prepare ministers for both denominations. In 1819, at Lancaster, Pa., Synod again considered the proposition of founding a joint seminary at Lancaster, and appropriated the sum of $100 for this purpose on condition that the Reformed Synod set aside an equal amount. A committee was also appointed to confer with a similar committee of the Reformed, and to draw up the necessary plans for the seminary. During this time, especially in the period of 1817 to 1825, prominent men of the Pennsylvania Synod considered and advocated plans for an organic "general union of our Church in this country with the Evangelical Reformed Church." (685.) The Pennsylvania minutes of 1822 contain a notice according to which Endress and W. A. Muhlenberg were among the chief advocates of this movement. Many, especially in the Pennsylvania and North Carolina synods, regarded and zealously urged the union of all Lutheran synods in a General Synod as a step in this direction, _viz_., union with the Reformed. Graebner says: "When all the Lutherans had been organized into one general body, and had grown accustomed to marching together, one might also hope to experience that when the command for the greater union would be given, the entire Lutheran people, now freed from Lutheranism, would march in stately procession to the goal of Schober"s Morning Star [union of all Evangelical churches]. This was evidently the policy and ulterior object when, at Harrisburg, 1818, the Pennsylvania Synod resolved that "the officers of Synod be a standing correspondence committee to bring about, if possible, a union with the other Lutheran synods."" (685.) Viewed in its historical context (the favorable deliberations and resolutions on the union seminary, the union hymn-book, etc.), this resolution admits of no other interpretation. When, therefore, the organization of the General Synod seemed, in the opinion of many, to interfere with and threaten the projected union with the Reformed, the Pennsylvania Synod promptly withdrew from this body, in 1823. Says Jacobs: "The form of the opposition [to the General Synod] was that the General Synod interfered with the plans that had been projected for a closer union with the Reformed, and the establishment of a Lutheran-Reformed theological seminary. Congregations in Lehigh County pet.i.tioned the synod, for this reason, to "return to the old order of things"; and the synod, in the spirit of charity [?] toward its congregations, in order that nothing might interrupt the mutual fraternal love that subsisted between the brethren, consented, by a vote of seventy-two to nine, to desert the

Prev List Next