CC3 7% 
 
 — OF — 
 
 PROF. R. A. YODER'S 
 
 a\ 
 
 nation ii North Carolina 
 
 JJ 
 
 BY A COMMITTEE. 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 The kind reader is requested to correct the following typo- 
 graphical errors, which mar the sense of what should be expressed : 
 Page 5, line 18 from bottom, substitute "this declaration" for 
 "the assertion." 
 top, change "prepared" to "proposed." 
 " insert the words "of Dort" after "The 
 
 Synod." 
 "• read "make" for "made." 
 bottom, read "English Conference" for 
 
 "Augsburg Confession." 
 top: after this line insert the following head- 
 ing of a new chapter: Does the Tennes- 
 see Synod teach the doctrine of election 
 in view of faith? 
 
 21, 
 29, 
 
 40, 
 
 40, 
 
 39, 
 
 11 
 13 
 
 7 
 7 
 
 9 
 
w 
 
 — OF — 
 
 PROF. R. A. YODER'S 
 
 an; j 
 
 i i 
 
 Ul 
 
 i 
 
 
 )) 
 
 BY A COMMITTEE. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 It is with sincere regret that the authors of this pamphlet ask an 
 impartial public for a brief hearing of their side of a case, on which 
 the pnblic so far has heard one side. The matters to be discussed are, 
 in part at least, of such a character that a charitably-disposed mind 
 should wish to have them discussed in private, brother facing broth- 
 er. However, since public attention has been invited to them, the 
 authors of the present pamphlet cannot justly be criticised for issuing 
 this defense, as their silence might, in parts where they are not 
 known, be interpreted as an admission of their guilt. 
 
 David, in his complaint against Does, says : "I am for peace: 
 but when I speak, they are for war." (Ps. 120:7.) The authors of 
 this pamphlet have, on more than one occasion, had a similar expe- 
 rience with their present opponents. If, therefore, this pamphlet 
 should accomplish what all their previous efforts have not accom- 
 plished in their opponents — namely, of convincing them of the just 
 right and honest intentions of Missouri in North Carolina, the au- 
 thors would consider that the best reward of all their past and pres- 
 ent toils in behalf of that peace and unity of the Church which is 
 commanded.— Eph. 4:3-6. W. H. T. Dau, 
 
 GrEO. A. ROMOSER, 
 
 J. M. Smith, 
 
 L. BUCHHEIMER, 
 
 C. L. Coon, 
 
 C. H. Bernheim. 
 
Review of Prof, Voder's "Situation In North Carolina. 1 
 
 Lately the public has been made acquainted with the 
 "Situation in North Carolina," a pamphlet by Prof. R. A. 
 Yoder, of Hickory. 
 
 Qf course, Prof. Yoder gives his version of the situa- 
 tion. He claims that there are disturbances and divisions 
 in churches of the Tennessee Synod on account of the pres- 
 ence of "Missouri" in Catawba county. The disturbing cen- 
 tre seems to be Conover and Concordia College. Prof. 
 Yoder claims that he writes his pamphlet because of these 
 divisions, hoping thereby to allay strife and discord, which 
 may be commendable even in one who has made a good 
 deal of the disturbance of which he now complains. But 
 Pi of Yoder should write as a true student of history and 
 facts, and not as the advocate of a cause, which he is labor- 
 ing to uphold. He speaks of the school question first, . and 
 that, no doubt, is the proper way to treat the subject, be- 
 cause it is highly probable that if there had been no school 
 trouble there would have been no seeming necessity on his 
 part to put himsrtf in print. 
 
 It is not our purpose to write a history of Concordia 
 College, but only to reply to some of the misstatements of 
 facts contained In the pamphlet referred to above. 
 
 A EEVISED VERSION OF THE SCHOOL QUESTION IN THE 
 TENNESSEE SYNOD. 
 
 Among other things, Prof. Yoder says : * * 
 "And the school was finally located at Conover, against 
 the wishes of a majority of the people." And again, ''In 
 this arbitrary proceeding a great majority of -our people 
 „. never acquiesced. Some of our people did lay aside their 
 preferences in the matter of location, for the sake of the 
 peace of the church, and aided in the erection of buildings 
 at Conover, although never satisfied with the location." 
 f^ Prof. Yoder asserts that at several meetings of the Lu- 
 
 *^K 
 
 
therans of this section, it was decided to locate the school 
 at Hickoiy. And why it was not done, Prof. Yoder, in 
 brief, says that we need only remember that Rey. J. M. 
 Smith was the only Lutheran pastor in Catawba county in 
 1875, that he had sons to educate, and that he lived in one 
 mile of Conover. Prof. Yoder never told the public that Con- 
 cordia College was not permanently located at Conover in 
 1875. Vrof. Yoder ought to have known that this was done 
 inlH77, and after Dr. P. C. Henkel had returned to Cono- 
 ver. But accepting Prof. Yoder's version, we are forced to 
 conclude that the people of Catawba Co in 1875 were not 
 able to look after their best interest — that they were duped 
 wad. humbugged by Rev. J.M.Smith and kept still about it, all 
 for the sake of peace. Strange, indeed, that only a few 
 years ago these people of Catawba county loved pease so 
 well, and now there is such a war that even the peace-lov- 
 ing Prof. Yoder almost calls for an armstice in order that 
 he may advise the combatants under which banner to light. 
 But stranger than all this is the fact that Prof. Yoder him- 
 self was a teacher at Conover almost uninterruptedly from 
 January 22, 1878, to May, 1891. and that, too, along with Dr. 
 P. C Henkel and never found out till 1891 that he was 
 being worked in the unholy cause ! And worse still and 
 stranger still does it look for Prof. Yoder's siucerity-and 
 the correctness of his present statements when it is remem- 
 bered that the Professor worked shoulder to shoulder all 
 this while with that influential disregarder of majorities, 
 Rev. J. M. Smith ! Prof. Yoder has left no record that he 
 ever, prior to this time, admonished Rev. Smith for his 
 <: high-handed" methods in locating the school at Conover. 
 If what Prof. Yoder says is true, we cannot refrain from 
 picturing to him the bad company he was in while he was 
 here at Conover laboring to establish what he openly pro- 
 claimed was a Christian school, while .at the same time he 
 must have known that it was conceived and fouaded in self- 
 ish motives and procured at Conover by "unchristian con- 
 duct." Or was, perhaps, even Prof. Yoder once a silent 
 partner in the sins which he now so boldly lays to the 
 charge of Rev. J. M. Smith ? 
 
 Prof. Yoder seems to be over- careful to give his author- 
 ity for his statements in regard to the school question. 
 Does the author of this pamphlet wish .to leave the impres- 
 sion that he never knew the history of Concordia College, 
 
though he was one of its fiet teachers, and was connected 
 with it for over ten 'years of its earliest history ? 
 
 But let us see how it came about that the school was 
 built at Conover, and let us see, too, who put it there. 
 
 The agitation in favor of a Lutheran school in Cataw- 
 ba county grew out of a debate, was first agitated after a 
 debate which Rev. J. M. Smith had with Rev. Daniel May, 
 a Methodist, on the 7th and 8th days of August, 1874, and NOT 
 after the Henkel-May debate, which was in April, 1875, nor 
 the Schmidt-May debate, which was in July, 1875. The 
 agitation arose in this way: 
 
 The Reformed people of this section took sides with 
 May in the Smith May debate in 1874. The Reformed 
 school, Catawba College, at Newton, (where Prof. W. P. 
 Cline was once a teacher, while Prof. Yoder was at Conover) 
 was up to that tims patronized by the Lutherans of this part 
 of the State. The fact that the Reformed people took sides 
 with May, a Methodist, opened the eyes of some people 
 around Conover as to their duty, and they went to Rev. 
 Smith and urged the founding of a Lutheran school at or 
 near Conover. Andrew Holler, of Conover, was one of the 
 first men who proposed this matter to Rev. Smith. Then 
 Dr. Henkel came back here on a visit in 1875; he was urged 
 to remain. He refused to return to North Carolina unless, 
 he said, he could be instrumental in building up a Lutheran 
 school in this section. Of course, the assertion on the part 
 of Dr. Henkel increased the school sentiment. He went 
 back to Missouri. Soon afterwards a meeting of delegates 
 from the various congregations of this section was called at 
 the instance of some persons favorable to a school at Cono- 
 ver. The delegates met at Newton. At this meeting some 
 favored Hickory as the school site, others Newton, and still 
 others Conover. A committee was appointed to examine 
 the merits of each place and report. This committee re- 
 ported at another meeting held at Newton. The committee 
 report was favorable to Hickory, and the delegates decided 
 the school should be built there. But resolutions did not 
 build schools in 1875, nor do they do so now. Hickory was 
 asked to see how much money could be raised for the 
 school buildings, and about $1,200 was subscribed. But 
 the buildings were not begun. Other meetings were held, 
 locating the* school first at Conover. then at Hickory, and 
 soon. It would be of no benefit to trace the ups and 
 
downs of the college through all these meetings. The school 
 question was almost dead, when in the spring of 1877, Dr. 
 Henkel returned to North Carolina. Another meeting was 
 then called at Newton. The claims of each —Hickory, Cou- 
 over and Newton— were again presented. Finally it was 
 agreed to leave the location to the place raising the largest 
 subscription for the school b lildings, a seemiugly fair way 
 to settle the question. Another meeting was called at St. 
 Paul's some time afterward. The principal business was 
 presented by Dr. Henkel, he reading a paper 
 forth the character of the school he and others wanted, viz., 
 a distinctively Lutheran school, where the Bible and Lu- 
 ther's Catechism should be taught daily. His paper was 
 discussed. The kind of school Dr. Henkel wanted was op- 
 posed by Marcus Yoder, of Hickory, and others, 
 The next meeting was held at St John's Church 
 on August 18, 1877, and the school located at Conover, and 
 steps were taken to erect the necessary buildings on the 
 present site of Concordia College. Conover had raised a 
 subscription of near $2,500 for the school buildings, Hicko- 
 ry about $1,200, and Newton about $800. 
 
 At this meeting at St. John's, according to record, were 
 present Revs. P. C. Henkel, H- Goodman, M. L. Little and 
 J.M.Smith; also Messrs. D.W.Moose, A. M. Huit, D.D. Seitz, 
 Andrew Holler and others. At this meeting Dr. Henkel was 
 chairman, J. M. Smith, secretary. Dr Henkel was here 
 elected president of the Board of Trustees of the school, and 
 J. M. Smith, secretary of said Board. 
 
 Here we have the official record showing that the site 
 was chosen at this meeting, and also that at that time no 
 buildings were yet erected. The reader will note that Dr. 
 Henkel was somewhat more prominent in all these "high- 
 handed, arbitrary" proceedings than Rev. Smith, as the 
 records show. Dr. Henkel was the leading spirit at the 
 meeting in Newton, at St. Paul's and at St. John's. Now, 
 are Prof. Yoder and the Hickory men ready to repudiate 
 Dr. Henkel as to this matter of college building ? Are they 
 ready to charge him with what they charge Rev. Smith V 
 If Rev. Smith was a sinner in this matter, Dr. Henkel was 
 also. But 7 nowadays we are furnished the spectacle of 
 certain Hickory pastors going about the country telling the 
 people they are just the Lutherans Dr. P. C. Henkel was ! 
 Henkels is the name these men now take on their lips to 
 
try to prove the Ohio doctrines of election and conversion, 
 when they know full well that Dr. Henkel at the time of his 
 death was corresponding- wich a view to getting- a Missou- 
 kian to come to North Carolina to take charge of work 
 here ! And now the public is treated to a "Situation in 
 North Carolina," dealing with the school question, by a 
 pretending friend of the late venerable Doctor with no men- 
 tion of the, real founder of the school under consideration ! 
 What does the candid reader think of such history f 
 
 Again Prof. Yoder says : "In 1889 the opposition to 
 the school at Conover had to some extent been allayed 
 because, in the meantime, Synod had taken it under its 
 care." 
 
 Here we have the remarkable declaration that the great 
 majority of the people of this county will chime in and 
 help a chool secured in a "high-handed and arbitrary" 
 manner and fathered by a man guilty of "unchristian con- 
 duct," if only the Tennessee Synod will surround such a 
 school with its "fostering wings." The year 188i must be a 
 memorable one in the history of the author of this pam- 
 phlet. Ii we mistake not, that is the same year Prof. "Soder 
 went about telling people to give their money to the school 
 at Conover, of which he was president. Prof. Yoder was 
 along with Bey. Cline on canvassing tours for the college 
 that year. Prof. Cline in that same year told the people 
 that he too had once opposed Concordia College, but that 
 he was wrong about it — that Conover was the place for the 
 school, etc. Profs. Yoder and Cline do not come out now 
 like men and say we were mistaken in our support of Cono- 
 ver school, say we were mistaken in 1889, say our whole 
 past record in regard to Concordia College was a mistake, 
 but they try to blacken and traduce the good names of 
 those who have been, as they ought to say, too ignorant to 
 see their mistake, as yet, in remairing at Conover. Calling 
 other people bad names will cover up no sins those who 
 attempt this method of defense may be guilty of. 
 
 And Dr. Fqx is resurrected to testify for the defense ! 
 
 Prof. Yoder forgets that he used to say hard things 
 about Dr Fox for being on the opposite side of Prof Yoder 
 as to this school question. It does make a great difference 
 as to the size of some things, if the observer changes places 
 during his observation ! ! 
 
 Prof. Yoder pays his respects to Conover and to the 
 
called session of the Tennessee Synod at St. James, Decem- 
 ber 26-27, 1890, by calling Revs. Smith and Bernheim ''un- 
 christian" and by saying the Conover party forced a vote 
 under "gag-law " The Hickory men claim that the propo- 
 sition of Mr. J. G. Hall was not voted on, that Synod was 
 called together for that purpose — to cortsider Hall's propo- 
 sition. Perhaps it would be well to see just what the Hick- 
 ory men wanted Synod to vote on. Here it is : 
 
 Whereas, Mr. J. Gr. Hall, of the city of Hickory, trustee of 
 certain school and other property, lying in and near said city, has 
 offered the same to our Synod, and 
 
 Whereas, An opportunity is thus afforded us to increase our 
 school property and advantages, and 
 
 Whereas, We believe that the time has now come for us to be- 
 gin to meet our resbonsibility to the orphans of our Synod, there- 
 fore 
 
 Resolved, That we accept the offer made by Mr. Hall, and use 
 said property for our college,, with its theological department. 
 
 2. That we accept the offer made us, by the board, of the prop- 
 erty in the town of Conover, provide for the improvement of and ad- 
 dition to it, and the establishment of a home for the needy orphans of 
 the Lutheran Church, and the perpetuation of a good academical 
 school, upon the basis adopted by the original founders of said school. 
 
 3. That, in view of his untiring zeal and almost unequaled sue 
 cess in the propagation and defense of the pure doctrines of the 
 Church, and especially that of infant church membership, thus mak- 
 ing him pre-eminently the spiritual patron of the children, our insti- 
 tution at Conover be known as the P. C. HENKEL ORPHAN 
 HOME AND ACADEMY, a living and useful memorial- to the 
 ■worth of him Avhose name it shall thus bear, and that our college re- 
 tain its present name. 
 
 4. That both these institutions be controlled by the same board 
 of directors, whose members shall all be members of our Synod, with 
 the specified life-time exception of Mr. J. Ox. Hall. 
 
 5. That, with devout gratitude, we recognize, in our opportuni 
 ties, the gracious provision of our heavenly Father, enabling us to 
 begin to meet our responsibilities to the orphans, as well as to the 
 youth of our dear old Synod. 
 
 Was Synod called together to establish academies, or- 
 phan asylums and the like ? Had Synod voted on the 
 above, would it have voted on what Synod was called to- 
 gether for, according to the Hickory men ? Of course it 
 would, and some other things, too! But when a substitute 
 was voted on that destroys the validity of the action of a 
 parliamentary body ! Wonderful ! Now, let the reader 
 remember that the Conover men were willing to continue the 
 debate on Monday, provided the names of some Conover 
 men who could not be present at Synod during the next 
 
week sliould ou Saturday evening be recorded as voting- in 
 favor of Conover and against Hall's proposition. This the 
 Hickory men refused to do. But yet the Conover men did 
 not call for the substitute, locating the school permanently 
 at Conover, until after the Rev. J. R. Peterson, the mover 
 of the substitute, asked Prof. Yoder, the president of the 
 school, whether the school could not be made a success at 
 Conover. Prof. Yoder answered him that it could be made a 
 success at Conover, Then, and only then, was the substitute 
 offered and adopted by a majority of the Synod, counting 
 those not voting as against the substitute. The majority of 
 the Synod was against any further consideration of the Hall 
 proposition, and disposed of the matter by voting on a sub- 
 stitute, which carried. Of course, the Hickory men will 
 have to try to destroy the legality of that vote or they will 
 have a bad case against themselves in not obeying the wishes 
 of Synod. And if Prof. Yoder and his friends went to Hicko- 
 ry with no idea of establishing a school iu opposition to 
 the one at Conover, as he says, then why did he not insist 
 on the students here in 1891 keturning here ? But no, it 
 had to be shown apparently to the world that Conover was 
 not the place for the school or his actions would be ques- 
 tioned. The Hickory men let the school at Conover die 
 two or three weeks before the annual closing, and all be- 
 cause, if we are to believe them, they wanted to "increase 
 the school facilities of the Tennessee Synod !" 
 
 Prof. Yoder censures Rev. C. H. Bernheim for, as he 
 says, trying to make a deal with Ohio before the Synod at 
 St. James. It might be a pertinent question to ask why 
 Beruheim did not do the giving away act, which Prof. Yo- 
 der seems to think he was so anxious to do. One reason 
 was that Rev. Bernheim was not the whole Board of Trus- 
 trees at any time "within the memory of men still living." 
 And if those men, Smith and Bernheim, were so omnipotent 
 in locating schools, and it is shown that they failed to de- 
 liver the goods to Ohio on this occasion, might not the rea- 
 son be that it was because certain Lutherans about Conover 
 did not agree with Ohio in doctrine, nor approve of the way 
 Ohio got into North Carolina ? Let it be said that so far 
 as Rey. Bernheim's letter goes, he was not then writing for 
 anybody but himself. But here is what Rev. Bernheim 
 himself has to say ajxmt the matter : 
 
"Yoder's charge against me on page 12, quoting a part of my let- 
 ter, is of no weight whatever, because I then did not fully under- 
 stand the difference between Missouri and Ohio. Neither did 1 at 
 any time state that I never changed my views." 
 
 Then, again, Prof. Yoder tells how Revs. Smith and 
 Bernheim opposed a proposition to leave the matter of lo- 
 cation of Concordia College to a direct vote of the congre- 
 gations of the Tennessee Synod, though they had, on Jan- 
 uary 13, 1891, agreed to such a scheme. But the public 
 should remember that Revs. Smith and Bernheim acted 
 thus because Synod a few weeks before had said the school 
 should be at Conover, and to submit to a scheme of this 
 kind would have been equivalent to opening anew the war- 
 fare — of disregarding the express action of Synod, a thing, 
 no doubt, Prof. Yoder and others would have gladly wit- 
 nessed. Prof. Yoder. tells the public how the Board of 
 Trustees of Concordia College and two Missoueians called 
 a pastor for Concordia congregation. Prof. Yoder knows 
 that it was customary for one of the teachers in the college 
 here to be pastor of Concordia congregation in order to en- 
 able him to receive a better salary. That recommendation did 
 not amount to a call at all. Prof. Dau was called unani- 
 mously by Concordia congregation. No electioneering 
 was engaged in by anyone. Tho congregation wanted to 
 call a Missourian and did so, because it had a perfect right 
 to do so. And now we are told by some people that it was 
 not divine, because a professorship was coupled with it. 
 Did not Prof Yoder tell members of Concordia congrega- 
 tion to call Rev. J. G. Schaidt or they could "let the school 
 go down ?" Prof. Yoder was in the Board meeting that 
 called Schaidt, and the record shows it, and also shows 
 that "Prof. Yoder was to notify Rev. Schaidt of his call af- 
 ter the congregation acted." Prof Yoder ought to be the 
 last man to say anything about Prof. Dau's call. 
 
 Now, let us see how the English" Synod of Missouri 
 
 OBTAINED CONTROL OF CONCORDIA COLLEGE. 
 
 Prof. Yoder says it was thus : ' The Missourians tak- 
 ing advantage of this disaffection in the Tennessee Synod, 
 and aided by members of the Board of Trustees, who 
 played the part of traitors to the Tennessee Synod, secured 
 control of the school." — [See page 19.] 
 
 Here Missouri is accused of taking advantage of a dis- 
 
 10 
 
affection and of slyly creeping- in at Conover. 
 
 The history is this : In the autumn of 1891 the Board 
 of Trustees of Concordia College applied to Rev. F. Kuegele 
 as president of the Eng. Synod of Missouri to aid them in 
 securing teachers for the college. The proposition was 
 made that Missouri supply a president for the institution, 
 and that by holding Free Conferences an attempt be made 
 to bring about an agreement between Tennessee and Mis- 
 souri. No secret was made of this. President Kuegele 
 wrote to New Market, the headquarters of the Tennessee 
 Synod, about the matter. In December, 1891, Revs. Kue- 
 gele and Dallman came to Conover. Here it was agreed to 
 grant the request of the Board and provide the school with 
 a man to act as its president and as a professor in the same. 
 This put the school as such under control of Missouri. As 
 to the school property, it was mutually agreed that it should 
 remain in the same hands as before. But before ratifying 
 this agreement Revs. Kuegele and Dallman went to Hicko- 
 ry to inquire of the professors at Highland (now Lenoir) 
 College, whether they could show Missouri valid reasons 
 why Missouri should not supply teachers for Concordia 
 College. The Hickory men showed Missouri no such rea- 
 sons, neither did they warn Missouri away from Conover. 
 Then, the agreement was finally ratified. From these his- 
 toric facts it is clear : 
 
 1. Missouri did not creep in at Conover. 
 
 2. Before granting a teacher .for Concordia College, 
 Missouri made inquiry of the opponents and was not warned 
 away from Conover, neither at Hickory nor at New Mar- 
 ket. At Hickory one man expressed fears that the coming 
 of Missouri wouid lead to complications, and that is all. 
 
 3. The members of the Board of Trustees are wrong- 
 fully accused of being traitors to the Tennessee Synod. 
 From the" above named agreement it is plain that there was 
 no intention on the part of the Board nor on the part of 
 Missouri to deprive the Tennessee Synod of property or 
 rights. If such had been the intention, then the president 
 of Concordia College would not, ten months later, have 
 sent a report of the sshool to the convention of the Tennes- 
 see Synod at Hickory, by~wbich act the fostering care of that 
 Synod was acknowledged. Here it was that the Tennessee 
 Synod itself withdrew its oversight of Concordia College 
 and so cut loose from Conover. It is an error to say, as 
 
 11 
 
Prof Yoder does, that the Board of Trustees took the col- 
 lege away from the Tennessee Synod. The opposite is true 
 — the Synod discarded the college. It was only after such 
 action on the part of the Tennessee Synod that the Board 
 took steps looking to a transfer of the property to Missouri. 
 The charge of treason certainly comes with ill grace f i om 
 the very men who deserted the work at Conover. But 
 Prof. Yoder claims that the Minutes of Eng. Mo. Synod 
 contain a wrong statement when they say : "The Tennes- 
 see Synod withdrew its fostering care from the institution, 
 and the Board of Trustees applied to the Mission Board of 
 the German Mo. Synod." There is in these statements a 
 wrong order, which by oversight remained in the minutes 
 referred to above. This every one acquainted with the run 
 of affairs can easily see. The last statement should be said 
 first, and the truth will be told. Prof. Yoder's attitude at 
 present reminds us of the man who laid down the pasture 
 fence and went off and neglected to watch and to keep the 
 cattle in the pasture, and who, after the cattle had escaped, 
 proceeded to say bad things about cattle that would not 
 stay in the pasture where they belonged. No doubt, there 
 are some men-in Catawba county who are sorry now after 
 they see all the disturbance they have made. Prof. Yoder 
 by writing: a pamphlet which attacks everybody whom he 
 sees in sight, no doubt, wishes, and thinks thereby to pay 
 the debt he owes his Synod in not preserving its peace. 
 
 If in this whole transaction of makiog an agreement 
 with the Board of Trustees at Conover Missouri was at 
 fault, her fault was this —that she placed too much confi- 
 dence in the professions of love for Missouri so frequent 
 with pastors of the Tennessee Synod, and therefore believed 
 that an agreement between the Synods could' be brought 
 about. In this we were deceived and we are sorry for it. 
 
 MISSOURI PASTORS AND TENNESSEE SYNOD CONGREGATIONS. 
 
 The true believers in a Christian congregation, and 
 through them the whole congregation have the right, under 
 certain restrictions laid down in God's Word, to call a min- 
 ister, and it is the "Lutheran idea," as well as Biblical doc- 
 trine, that ''the pastor becomes such by virtue of his call 
 from a congregation." The inductions in God's Word, 
 which the congregation must observe in extending a call, 
 have reference solely and alone to the qualifications of the 
 
 V2 
 
person called and to his soundness in the faith. Within 
 these limits the congregation is free to act and when such 
 a call is directed to a candidate) or pastor, it is his duty to 
 accept, unless he can show by incontestable evidence that 
 God would have him stay where he is, and that the congre- 
 gation has simply misdirected the call, or sent it to the 
 wrong person. If that cannot be done, he dare not, as has 
 been said, turn a deaf ear to the cry for help. That the 
 pastors of Missouri will take charge of all vacant congre- 
 gations to which they have a regular, valid call, and thus 
 heed the cry for help, cannot surely be taken amiss. Such 
 a call must of course leave the pastor free to preach and 
 act according to his conscience bound in God's Word. If 
 in consequence, through the preaching of the Gospel pure 
 and simple, the congregation learns to see the advisability 
 of uniting with those who are then one with her in faith, 
 and of severing her connection with those with whom she 
 cannot agree in matters of doctrine, that is to be looked up- 
 on only as one of the results of a faithful pastor's ministra- 
 tions. Where it is manifest that there are differences which 
 can be composed, the congregation will take no steps to 
 sever her connection with her old Synod. Where there are 
 such differences, the separation should take place only af- 
 ter repeated efforts to compose them have been unsuc- 
 cessful. 
 
 In the Missouri Synod it has never been a practice to 
 hold a lien upon the church property in some way or other, 
 so as to insure the adherence of the congregation to the 
 h\nod. In the minutes of the 15th General Assembly, in 
 St. Louis, 1872 — pages 60-61 — we see how Missouri con- 
 demns "tyranizing over consciences:" — 
 
 "We have never taught that a congregation only then had all 
 the privileges of a true church when she belonged to a Synod. We 
 have always advised our young preachers not to take their congre- 
 gations as it were by storm (bestuermen) so that they join the Syn- 
 od. * * We have always advised congregations not to write 
 in their constitution : Our congregation shall always belong to the 
 Missouri Synod. We have always said that we do not desire that, 
 and that a congregation cannot and should not rely on any Synod, 
 not even the Missouri Synod. * * When a congregation 
 
 leaves our Synod we do not say on that account : She is now no 
 longer Lutheran. * * Congregations are to remain in our 
 Synod only for this reason, because they themselves see : It is prof- 
 
 13 
 
itable for us to remain therein. We are there connected also exter- 
 nally with many brethren in the faith. Much can be done there for 
 the kingdom of Grod, that coald not otherwise be done. We our- 
 selves say : If it should ever happen that our Synod should take up 
 false doctrine or unionistic practice, then cheerfully sever your con- 
 nection with her." 
 
 ST. MARTIN'S CONGREGATION, IREDELL CO., N. C. 
 
 In a letter written by Prof. Dau to the then president 
 of the Tennessee Synod, Rev. J. Paul Stirewalt, to inform 
 him of the call to St. Martin's congregation of Pastor Ro- 
 moser, and asking him to do something towards allaying 
 threatened trouble, he says : 
 
 "I do sincerely deplore that I cannot, at present, conscientious- 
 ly become a member of the E. L. Tenn. Synod. It is, however, my 
 earnest desire to unite myself with your Synod as soon as certain 
 obstacles are removed. For it matters little to me what the appel- 
 lation of the Synod is to which I belong, so long as it is a truly Lu- 
 theran Synod in doctrine and practice. * The fact that the E. L. 
 Tenn. Synod is at present connected with other Lutheran bodies 
 whose Lutheranism I have grave reasons to regard as questionable 
 and not genuine, causes me to stand aloof. Could representatives 
 of the E. L Tenn. Synod and tire E. L. Synod of Missouri meet and 
 jointly discuss the doctrines of our beloved Church, and could these 
 discussions, by the help of God, be so blessed as to result in a pub- 
 lic declaration that there is perfect unanimity in doctrine and prac- 
 tice between the two Synods, I should not hesitate any longer to 
 apply for membership in the E. L. Tenn. Synod. Rumors are being 
 circulated that the Missouri pastors are trying to cause a schism in 
 the E. L. Tenn. Synod and capture a congregation or two. I dis- 
 claim any intentions of such a nature, and sincerely regret these re- 
 ports. I have entered the precincts of your Synod in answer to a 
 divine call and with no other mission in my mind than to preach 
 the blessed G-ospel and build our Lutheran Zion." 
 
 Hence, when trouble arose in St. Martin's congrega- 
 tion, it was not due to any action on the part of the Mis- 
 sourian, Prof. Dau, who was then already in Conover. Two 
 calls regularly made out by the committees duly appointed 
 for that purpose, from St. Martin's and Sharon congrega- 
 tions, had already been sent to candidate, Roinoser, in St. 
 Louis. Since these calls were very brief, Romoser, without 
 declining, asked for a fuller and more comprehensive call. 
 
 14 
 
Since baste was necessary in order to get this call to St. 
 Louis in time, a more comprehensive call was written and 
 signed by one of the members of the committee, Mr. R. F. 
 Cline, with the consent of another member. In the mean 
 time, due to outside interference, dissension arose in the 
 congregation, which caused Prof. Dau to hold an investi- 
 gation. In me meeting it was moved and seconded that 
 the call be ratified, to correct any irregularity that might 
 be supposed to exis,t in this matter. "Now, then was the 
 time'fui the opposition to show whether the pretended ir- 
 regularity was their only and real objection; for if that had 
 been the case, they might have cheerfully voted for the rat- 
 ification. But the motion having been made, their princi- 
 pal speaker at once entered a solemn protest, declaiming 
 loudly and bitterly against Missouri and insinuating all 
 manner of vile things." At last the final vote was taken on 
 ratificntion, and stood 23 for and 5 against. President 
 Stirewalt called the attention of the Tenn. Synod, assem- 
 bled in Hickory, 1892, to the matter (perhaps upon the 
 strength of Prof. Dau's letter) and recommended thac the 
 matter be iavestigated. In spite of the efforts of a member 
 of Synod, who claimed to have a letter in his pocket from 
 the secretary of St. Martin's (though not as secretary,) Syn 
 od did "not deem synodical action necessary." Still the 
 matter was kept stirred and the faction in the congregation 
 sent a petition to the North Carolina Conference of the 
 Tenn. Synod, urging some action. Conference appointed a 
 committee, two members of which, Revs. J. R. Peterson and 
 L. L. Lohr, who, having informed Pastor Romoser, met 
 him and the congregation April 4, 1883. The result was 
 that Pastor Peterson was inclined to think the call regular, 
 while Pastor Lohr thought otherwise. Thus nothing was 
 accomplished for those who were determined upon ''some 
 action." The subject was still agitated and Conference ap- 
 pointed another committee. This committee went to St. 
 Martin's without ever having informed the pastor or even 
 the congregation, and "from statements made by all par- 
 ties" (?) learned this call was ''irregular." That such opin- 
 ion would have great weight with many of the members was 
 o)nly natural, since they had known and esteemed these 
 committeemen for many years. Therefore, some of the 
 members who had voted for ratifying the call yielded, and 
 it was resolved by a vote of 31 to 22 on the part of the con- 
 
 15 
 
gregation that the call was irregular, and Pastor Romoser 
 was obliged to withdraw. The division still existing in the 
 congregation, which Prof. Yoder deplores so much, may 
 perhaps appear in another light when some at least of those 
 members who are not yet reconciled are heard to say : "It 
 is our firm conviction that this congregation, by a majority 
 of its members, did wrong in breaking the call extended 
 to Pastor Romoser." 
 
 SHARON CONGREGATION, IREDELL CO., N. C. 
 
 As regards Sharon congregation, this congregation in 
 its unity is a living refutation of the charges of irregularity 
 made against the call. Not only was a congregational 
 meeting held and a vote taken empowering the committee 
 to call, but the congregation also appointed a committee to 
 be present at the meeting of the investigating committee at 
 St. Martin's in April, and instructed them to declare that 
 "Sharon church was determined to hold to the call which 
 she had extended to Prof. Romoser. 
 
 As for the constitution which Romoser is charged with 
 having set aside, the facts are these : Let it be remarked 
 that not a word was said about this constitution until after 
 Rev. Romoser was in North Carolina. Then it began to 
 be noised about that Sharon's constitution required the 
 pastor to belong to the Tenn. Synod. The elders, with the 
 pastor, resolved to investigate the matter, and Mr. Cline 
 called upon Rev. Suttlemyre for what was claimed to be 
 Sharon's constitution. A paper was given him, but when it 
 was read to the congregation the members did not know 
 whether ih was their constitution or not, for the following 
 reasons : The paper was the borrowed constitution of an- 
 other church, and throughout there was found the name of 
 another congregation, instead of Sharon. The necessary 
 corrections had not been made in this paper, and the mem- 
 bers did not know whetber they had been made in other 
 places or not. Furthermore, not a single member had 
 signed the paper, as it itself demanded. In view of these 
 facts, the members said they could not recognize the paper 
 as their constitution. And in order to show their senti- 
 ments, the congregation on August 26, 1894, took formal 
 action condemning in strong terms the statements made in 
 Prof. Yoder's book with reference to Sharon church. 
 
 16 
 
ST. JOHN'S GHUKCHj CATAWBA COUNTY, N. C. 
 
 By authority of St. John's E. L. Congregation of Catawba 
 county, N. C, we, the undersigned, herewith make the follow- 
 ing 
 
 Statement: 
 
 On September 2, 1894, our pastor read to our congregation 
 that portion of Prof. Yoder's pamphlet which relates to the 
 calling of our present pastor. After some discussion it was 
 resolved that the charges contained in said pamphlet be pub- 
 licly answered, and that the council of our church be ap- 
 pointed to formulate this answer and have it published. In 
 accordance with these resolutions we offer to the public the 
 following: 
 
 On May 20, 1893, our congregation held a meeting for the 
 purpose of electing a pastor to succeed the Rev. C. H. Bern- 
 heim, who had resigned the office to remove to Lexington, N. 
 C, on account of the feeble health of his wife. This meeting 
 had been duly announced before, and was well attended. By 
 a rule of our constitution a number of our members would 
 have been prevented from voting. A motion was, therefore, 
 made and carried at the beginning of the meeting, that 
 the rules of the congregation be temporarily suspended. 
 By this motion the side which now complains that we have 
 acted unfairly in the calling of our present pastor, was great- 
 ly benefitted; for had not this motion prevailed a number of 
 them could not have voted at all. There were present at tlrs 
 meeting our then pastorfRev. C. H. Bernheim, and Rev. J. 
 M. Smith, both of whom are .charged in the pamphlet of Prof. 
 Yoder with "electioneeringfor a Missourian." The facts are 
 these: Rev. C. H. Bernheim dia in no wise betray that he 
 sought to influence us in the choice of our pastor, and Rev. 
 Smith was present principally to prevent his own election, as 
 he had been informed that he would be chosen. None of 
 those who have voted for our present pastor shall concede that 
 they were in any wise coerced to do so; they voted with the 
 utmost freedom, and they voted with an eye to the best inter- 
 ests of the congregation. There was "electioneering," if we 
 may borrow Prof. Yoder's phrase, but that was on the other 
 side. Mr. Silas Wike and Miss Sallie Herman (now Mrs. 
 Holler) made it their business prior to the meeting to per- 
 sonally see some of our members and urge them to vote for 
 
 17 
 
Prof. Yoder. There were placed in nomination for the pas- 
 torate of our congregation, Prof. Dau and Prof. Yoder. The, 
 first ballot resulted in 37 votes for the former and 16 for the 
 latter. A motion was then offered to make Prof. Dau's call 
 unanimous, which was dene, only 6 voting against the motion. 
 It soon became painfully manifest that the oppositionists 
 were determined to create a disturbance. Soon after our 
 congregation learned with great sadness that a new congrega- 
 tion was about to be organized out of those who would not 
 accept the services of our present pastor, and that Prof. Yoder 
 was serving these parties at Wike's school house. Thus it 
 will be seen, that while our part of the congregation used all 
 efforts to prevent a rupture in the congregation, the opposi- 
 tionists in every possible way widened the breach which they 
 had made in the beginning, and clearly showed that they 
 would not listen to God's word, when brought to bear on thetr 
 by our side. The climax was reached when the oppo- 
 sition petitioned the Tennessee Synod for advice and assis- 
 tance. None of our members have ever been able to inspect 
 the paper which contained the petition; all that we know of 
 it is the portion quoted in the minutes of the Tennessee Synod 
 of 1893, and again quoted in Prof. Yoder's pamphlet on page 
 23. The minutes of the Tennessee Synod make this petition 
 emanate ''from St. John's E. L. Congregation;" this should 
 read u from a small minority of the congregation." We do not 
 mean to blame our Synod for this, for Synod probably looked 
 at the 37 signatures of this petition, and imagined that these 
 signatures represented about the eiftire congregation. In this 
 there was not a little deception practiced. In the first place 
 we wish to state that the 37 members are not voting members, 
 we cannot even say that they are communing members ;'or 
 members in good standing, because we have never seen the 
 paper. None of the gentlemen whom Prof. Yoder mentions 
 as his informers on page 22, cexcepting Mr. Silas Wike, were 
 consistent members of our congregation. Our opponents 
 ought to publish the paper with all the signatures. The reason 
 why we know that those 37 members are not all voting mem- 
 bers is this: Mr. L. E. Warren, one of the signers of that 
 paper, afterwards in a meeting of our congregation stated 
 that he had signed the paper not knowing and understanding 
 the contents thereof, that he was sorry he had permitted his 
 name to be affixed to this paper and should like to have it 
 
 18 
 
erased, if this could be done. At his house 2 more signa- 
 tures were obtained, that of his wife and his mother-in-law, 
 Mrs. Price. The latter lady related the following at Mr. Noah 
 Brady's house: The petition Was brought to her house and 
 the bearer of the same read from it to prove that the Missouri 
 Synod was teaching Calvinistic doctrine regarding election, 
 and on the strength of that they had permitted their names 
 to be affixed to the document. — Our congregation holds that 
 the petitioners should first have tried to have the matter set- 
 tled in our congregation before they carried it to Synod; and 
 that, after Synod had appointed a committee to investigate 
 this matter, the committee, at least, should have called our 
 congregation and also the petitioners together, and after hear- 
 ing both sides, should have rendered their decision. Our 
 congregation patiently waited to hear from the committee, but 
 so far in vain. Now, we learn from Prof. Yoder's pamphlet 
 that the committee have already rendered their decision, 
 without ever giving us a hearing, and have advised the peti- 
 tioners to organize their own congregation. We claim that 
 the committee have not discharged the duty imposed on them. 
 We leave it to all impartial men to say how such action ought 
 to be termed. In conclusion, we would say, that Prof. Yoder 
 is wrong in claiming that the calling of our present pastor 
 has divided our congregation. The truth is, that for ten years 
 we have not had a pastor under whom we were more united 
 than under the one we have now. There has been trouble 
 in our congregation for at least ten years, and both Profs. 
 Yoder, and Mcser, who endorses the pamphlet of Prof. Yoder, 
 know of them, for they were personally concerned m them. 
 More might be said, but this will suffice. 
 
 • N. E. Sigmon. 
 
 N. E. Beady. 
 
 B. E. Smith. 
 
 F.J.Dellingee. 
 
 J. J. Cline. 
 Luthee's Chapel Congregation, Glen Alpine, N. C. 
 With regard to Luther's Chapel congregation at Glen Al- 
 pine, N. C, we offer the following facts: 
 
 Mrs. Edward Sigmon was not living at Glen Alpine at the 
 time of Prof. Dau's call to the pastorate. Whatever, there- 
 fore, she said to Rev. Rudisili regarding the "condition" in 
 the call, she must have been told by some one of the congre- 
 
 19 
 
gation who was present at the calling. Mr. J. J. Sigmon, her 
 father-in-law, whom Prof. Yoder mentions as present at the 
 conversation between Rev. Rudisill and Mrs. Sigmon, and 
 assenting to what Mrs. Edward Sigmon said, states the matter 
 thus: "I remember the occasion, but I do not recollect the 
 words that were spoken. But no matter what was said, it is 
 not so that our pastor was called "under condition" thst he 
 join the Tennessee Synod; he expressed hopes of being able 
 to join the Tennessee Synod after certain differences should 
 have been adjusted, however, when we called him and handed 
 him a written vocation, there were no conditions stipulated, 
 except that he. preach to us the word of God in accordance 
 with our confessions, that he lead a christian life and faith- 
 fully discharge a pastor's duties among us." 
 
 In addition to this, the congregation at Glen Alpine offers 
 the following testimony: 
 
 "After Prof. Schaid, our former pastor, had left us, we were 
 unable to obtain a pastor, for more than a year. We applied 
 to Hickory, and were promised that we would be served, but 
 that was all. Even appointments that had been made, were 
 not filled. We then heard of the n^w professors at Conover, 
 and our secretary wrote to Mr. P. C. Lail of Conover, de- 
 scribing our need and asking for a pastor. In consequence 
 of this Prof. Dau visited us in June, 1892, and preached us a 
 sermon. After the sermon a meeting of the voting members 
 of our church was held to consider the calling of a pastor. 
 Prof. Dau stated that he was not a member of the Tennessee 
 Synod, and explained his reason for not joining our Synod at 
 once; however, he hoped to do so whenever the Tennessee 
 Synod should sever her present connection with the United 
 Synod of the South, and he-could be sure that he fully agreed 
 with them. As to his serving our congregation he stated that 
 if the congregation' desired further service by him, they must 
 extend a written call to him. This was agreed to; the call 
 was given him, and he became our pastor. We cannot see 
 how any one can find fault with the manner in which Prof. 
 Dau came in to us, nor have we any complaints to make re- 
 garding his ministration among us." J. D. Hoke. 
 
 J. J. Sigmon. 
 
 In conclusion, we refer to a very clear and strong paragraph 
 on page 24 of Prof. Yoder's pamphlet reading: "In the out- 
 set they dictated terms upon which they would condescend 
 
 20 
 
to connect themselves with the Tennessee Synod, such terms 
 as would practically make the Tennessee Synod Missourians, 
 i. e., whenever the Tennessee Synod would withdraw from 
 the United Synod of the South, and agree with them in doc- 
 trine and practice; of course, they would connect themselves 
 then, when the Tennesse Synod would become Missourian." 
 Omitting the dictation part, this paragraph contains facts. 
 No true Missourian can conscientiously belong to so mixed a 
 body as is the United Synod of the South, and we want no 
 outward union without unity. To bring about such unity 
 free conferences were prepared and we would hail with joy 
 the arranging of such conferences, but we cannot and do not 
 mean to dictate them. 
 
 ABE THE MISSOUKIANS PROSELYTERS? 
 
 On page 25 of Prof. Yoder's pamphlet we read: "Mis- 
 souri is regarded as a disturbing and proselyting Synod, 
 not only here, but also at other places." 
 
 Yes, Missouri has been denounced as a disturbing ele- 
 ment in America and Europe, in Asia and Australia, and in 
 Africa; and now in these last times Prof. Yoder joins the 
 chorus. Let us remind him that the Thessalonians knew 
 how to make the same charge, for of Paul and Silas they 
 declared: These that have turned the world upside down 
 have come hither also, (Acts 17:6). 
 
 Prof Yoder also goes to some pains to quote what 
 others say of Missouri, whom he claims are uninterested 
 witnesses. Now, as Solomon has somewhere told us to 
 "let another man praise thee and not thine own lips," we 
 beg to be excused from presenting encomiums on Missouri. 
 However, it would be an easy matter to do so, even from 
 the minutes and church paper of Prof. Yoder's own Synod. 
 Then Prof. Yoder says Dr. Henkel never belonged to the 
 English Mo. Synod. Of course not. But he belonged to 
 and was one of the founders of the English Mo. Confer- 
 ence, which afterwards was organized into the English Mo. 
 Synod ! And if it is said that the spirit of the English Mo. 
 Synod of today is meddlesome and abominable, then the 
 heads of its founders should bear the odium of bringing 
 into beirg such a body. But Dr. Henkel's labors in this 
 connection have been commended by both Tennessee and 
 Missouri. 
 
 21 
 
On page 26 of his pamphlet, Prof. Yoder quotes Har- 
 old & Zeitschrift, April 1, 1893, to show that even in the 
 Synodical Conference, the general body to which the Mo. 
 Synod belongs, there is a feeling against Missouri. Those 
 who wish to investigate the truthfulness of this quotation 
 and find out what the Wisconsin Synod has to say as to 
 this fuss, can find a reply to this very quotation of the Pro- 
 fessor's by consulting the Gemeindeblatt, No. 1, 1893. This 
 paper is the official organ of the Wisconsin Synod, and it 
 takes strong grounds against those who publish articles 
 like the one Prof. Yoder quotes. But for the benefit of 
 those who may not have an opportunity to see the reply 
 in question we shall quote a few words from it: "Finally, 
 the union is not intended to isolate Missouri and to begin 
 the work of dissolving the Synodical Conference, for, in 
 virtue, the Synodical Conference has experienced au in- 
 crease by the entrance of the Synod of Michigan, formerly 
 not of that body." 
 
 Here we have the statement from the official organ of the 
 Wisconsin Synod to the effect that Wisconsin does not de- 
 sire to isolate Missouri, which would seem to mean that she 
 has yet a sisterly affection for her sifter Synod of Missouri 
 and does not wish it discontinued. 
 
 And yet, Prof. Yoder asks who these Missourians are, 
 who these disturbers of the church are, and what manner 
 of men they art! Why, indeed, they are the same men Dr. 
 Henkel tried to get into North Carolina long ago; they are 
 the same men he co-operated with in founding the English 
 Missouri Conference, afterwards the English Synod of 
 Missouri; they are the same men Dr. Socrates Henkel says 
 are very respectable people, and finally they are the very 
 same men whom Prof. Yoder labors in a 50 page pamphlet 
 to misrepresent and villify by quoting Nicum, Ohio, and 
 other unreliable sources of information. 
 
 Finally, the Missourians in North Carolina are not 
 proselyters as the following facts will show: 
 
 1. Missouri did not come to North Carolina discussing 
 election and raising a fuss, but Prof. Yoder circulated a 
 report in advance of Prof. Dau's coming to the effect that 
 Missouri was Calvinistic, and Prof H. K. Doermann of the 
 Ohio Synod had circulated the report that he would chal- 
 lenge Prof. Dau to debate election as. soon as the Missou- 
 rian should arrive here. Missouri was drawn into this 
 
 'JO 
 
discussion of election unwillingly. She had hoped to 
 agree with Tennessee. 
 
 2. Prof. Dau advised Concordia congregation over one 
 year ago, when it wished to withdraw from the Tennessee 
 Synod to remain in the Tennessee Synod as long as there 
 was any hope of Missouri and Tennessee getting to- 
 gether. And Prof. Dau and the congregation are still 
 waiting almost against hope. 
 
 3. Missouri has never attempted to get students for 
 Concordia College in Tennessee Congregations unfriendly 
 to Missouri. When students from such congregations have 
 applied for admission, they, however, have been admitted. 
 
 4. Every sermonon election preached in North Caro- 
 lina by Missouri pastors has been by request. Missouri 
 practices the directions of Paul and the Book of Concord 
 in presenting this doctrine. She does not preach election 
 to the exclusion of other doctrines. 
 
 5. Missouri 'does not today ovm the college property at 
 Conover. Though the Board of Trustees offered it to Mis- 
 souri, Missouri advised them to wait to see whether Mis- 
 souri and Tennessee could not sometime soon unite in 
 church work here in North Carolina. 
 
 6. Missouri has been careful not to distribute broad- 
 cast her literature, as is the practice of Ohio in this sec- 
 tion. Missouri has confined her work to those congrega- 
 tions over which Missouri pastors have the oversight, or 
 those in fellowship with them. Tennessee pastors have 
 been sent copies of pamphlets setting forth our doctrine of 
 election. The distribution of our literature in congregations 
 unfriendly to us has never been practiced .by Missouri in 
 North Carolina." 
 
 7. And after all that Prof. Yoder can or may say, it is 
 true that the Missouri Synod has not added one church, one 
 pastor, or one church member to its fold on account of the 
 presence and work of Missouri in North Carolina. This is 
 true to date, Sept. 15, 1894 
 
 Does any candid reader believe Missouri would have 
 acted thus, if she was here in North Carolinia to proselyte 
 Lutherans? The actions of Missouri are a standing refuta- 
 tion of this charge of Prof. Yoder. 
 
 23 
 
"MISSOURI'S DOCTRINE OF ELECTION." 
 
 In his fourth chapter Prof. Yoder endeavors to prove our 
 doctrine of election Calvinistic. We herewith give to the 
 kind reader our Synod's final confession on this doctrine as 
 adopted at Ft. Wayne in 1880. 
 
 CONFESSION OF THE SYNOD OF MISSOURI ON THE DOCTRINE OF 
 
 PREDESTINATION. 
 
 % 
 
 "1. We believe, teach and confess, that God loved the whole 
 world from eternity, created all men unto salvation, none unto 
 damnation, and that He earnestly wills the salvation of all men; 
 and we therefore reject and condemn with all our heart the contrary 
 Calvinistic doctrine. 
 
 "2. We believe, teach and con fesss, that the Son of God c me 
 into the world for all men, that He bore and expiated the sins of all 
 men, and that He fully redeemed all men, none excepted; we there- 
 fore reject and condemn the contrary Calvinistic doctrine with all 
 our heart. 
 
 "8. We believe, teach and confess, that God calls through the 
 means of grace all men earnestly, that is, with the purpose that they 
 should, through these means, be brought to repantehce and faith, 
 also be preserved therein unto their end, and thus be finally led to 
 blessedness, conformable to which purpose God offers them through 
 the means of grace the salvation wrought by Christ's atonement 
 and the power to embrace this salvation by faith; and we therefore 
 reject and condemn the contrary Calvinistic doctrine with all our 
 heart. % 
 
 "4. We believe, teach and confess, that no one perishek because 
 God was not willing that he be saved, passed him by with His grace; 
 and because He had not also offered him the grace of perseveran ce 
 and was not willing to bestow the same upon him. But all men that 
 perish, perish because of their own fault, because of their unbelief 
 and because they contumaciously resisted the Word and grace unto 
 their end. The cause of this contempt of the Word is not God's fore- 
 knowledge^? praescientia vel praedestinatio,) but man's perverted 
 will which rejects or perverts the means and the instrument of the 
 
 24 
 
Holy Spirit, which God offers unto it through the call, and it resists 
 the Holy Spirit who would be efficacious and operate through the 
 Word, as Christ says: Matth. 23:37, How often would I have gathered 
 you together, and ye would not, {Form, of Concord p. 718, §41.) There" 
 'fore we reject and condemn the contrary Calvinistic doctrine with 
 all our heart. 
 
 "5. We believe, teach and confess, that the elect or predestinated 
 persons are only the true believers, who truly believe unto their 
 end or yet at the end of their life; we reject therefore and condemn 
 the error of Huber, that election is not particular, but universal and 
 pertains to all men. 
 
 "6. We believe, teach and confess, that the divine decree of 
 election is unchangeable and that therefore no elect person can be- 
 come a reprobate and perish, but that every one of the elect will 
 surely be saved: and we therefore reject and condemn the contrary 
 Huberian error with all our heart. 
 
 "7. We believe, teach and. confess, that it is foolish and soul- 
 endangering, leads either to carnal security or despair to endeavor 
 to become or be sure of our own election or eternal happiness by 
 means of seai'ching out the eternal secret decree of God; and we re- 
 ject and condemn the contrary doctrine as an injurious fanatic no- 
 tion with all our heart. 
 
 u 8. We believe, teach and confess, that a true believer ought to 
 endeavor to become sure of his election from God's revealed will ; 
 and we therefore reject and condemn with all our heart the opposite 
 Papistical error, that one may become or be sure of his election and 
 salvation only by means of a new immediate revelation. 
 
 "9. We believe, teach and confess: 1. That election does not 
 consist in the mere fact that God foresaw which men will secure 
 salvation; 2. That election 's'also not the mere purpose of God to 
 redeem and save men, which would make it universal and extend 
 in general to all men; 3^That election does not embrace those 
 'which believe for awhile' (Luke 8:12.) 4. That election is not a 
 mere decree of God to lead to bliss all those who would believe unto 
 their end; we therefore reject and condemn the opposite errors of 
 Rationalists, Huberians and Arminians with all our heart. 
 
 "10. We believe, teach and confess, that the cause which moved 
 God to elect, is alone His grace and the merit of Jesus Christ, and 
 not anything good foreseen by God in the elect, not even faith fore- 
 seen in them by God; and we therefore reject and condemn the op- 
 
posite doctrines of the Pelagians, Seini-Pelagians and Synergists as 
 blasphemous, dreadful errors which subvert the Gospel and there- 
 with the whole Christian religion. 
 
 "11. We believe, teach and confess, that election is not the mere 
 divine foresight or prescience of the salvation of the elect, but also 
 a cause of their salvation and of whatever pertains to it; and we 
 therefore reject and condemn the opposite doctrines of the Armin- 
 ians, Socinians, and of all Synergists with all our heart. 
 
 "12. We believe, teach and confess, that God has also concealed 
 and kept secret many things concerning the mystery of election and 
 reserved them for His wisdom and knowledge alone, into which no 
 human being is able and ought to search; and we therefore reject 
 every attempt to inquire curiously also into these things which have 
 not been revealed, and to harmonize with our reason those things 
 which seem contradictory to our reason, may such attempts be 
 made by Calvinistic, or Pelagianistic Synergistic doctrines of men. 
 
 "13. We believe, teach and confess, that it is not only not use- 
 less, much less injurious, but necessary and salutary that the mys- 
 terious doctrine of election, in so far as it is clearly revealed in God's 
 Word, be presented also publicly to Christian people, and we there- 
 fore do not agree with those who hold that entire silence should be 
 kept thereon, or that its discussion should only be indulged in by 
 learned theologians." C. A. F. Tr. 
 
 With this ''Confession" Synod, at the same time, issued 
 the following directions : 
 
 With these 13 theses we do not connect any other meaning than 
 that suggested by the words in their native sense. Anyone who 
 really accepts these theses, as they read, is one with us in faith. We 
 confess that in these theses there is laid down the sum and sub- 
 stance of what we believe regarding the eternal election of God. At 
 the same time we herewith state that we do not agree to anything 
 that is not in harmony with these theses, even if it were found 
 
 IN OUR OWN PUBLICATIONS. We KNOW OF NO SECRET OR HIDDEN 
 
 meaning in these theses.— Min. Gen. Syn. of Mo., 1881, p. 37. 
 [Emphasized passages our own.] 
 
 Prof. Yoder will grant that the author, of a book is the 
 best interpreter of that book. If he cannot harmonize the 
 quotations from our publications, which he has somewhere 
 discovered, we advise him to throw them away and devote 
 himself entirely to the 13 theses. As to those quotations 
 on pages 30 and 31 of his pamphlet, he himself states that 
 he obtained them "not from the original," because he "did 
 
 26 
 
not have them on hand." It is a question with us, whether 
 Prof. Yoder did ever read one entire article in those of our 
 publications from which he quotes. If he does not consid- 
 er it worth while to convince himself of the truth of what 
 he quotes, if he accepts garbled statements which others 
 put into his hand, does he really expect us to answer him ? 
 The best answer which we couldmake to his quotations and 
 the hideous errors which he deduces therefrom, imputing 
 them to us as part of our faith, should be to simply reproduce 
 those entire articles from which he quotes. And if the 
 Lord spares our life we shall do so, and were it for no oth- 
 er purpose but to convince Prof. Yoder that he is misrepre- 
 senting us with the assistance of Ohio. 
 
 However, we shall note some important objections to our 
 doctrine, which Prof. Yoder raises. Quoting our X Thesis 
 he "calls attention to the fact that 'faith' is excluded" in the 
 same. (p. 29.) Yes, so it is! And woe to the Lutheran 
 who should include faith in such a thesis! For, the thesis 
 speaks of "the cause which moved God to elect " Does our 
 Book of Concord mention faith as a cause of election? Prof. 
 Yoder quotes copiously from the Form of Concord, but he 
 has not one quotation to show that faith is "included" among 
 the causes of election. The Form of Concord, Epitome, XI 
 Art., rejects the following error; viz: "That the mercy of 
 God, and the most holy merit of Christ, are not the only 
 cause of the election of God, but that in us also there is a 
 cause, on account of which God has elected us to eternal 
 life."— (New Mark , 2 Ed., p. 586.) In this paragraph our 
 Church also "excludes" faith, and it is now for Prof. Yoder 
 to reject the Confessions of our Church, for the same rea- 
 son that he rejects our X Thesis : they both ''exclude" 
 faith as a cause of election. 
 
 By Prof. Yoder's remark on our X Thesis the impres- 
 sion is left on unwary minds that Missouri teaches an elec- 
 tion without faith; at least Prof. Yoder was not kind enough 
 to point out in the quotation which he makes from Prof. 
 Pieper's book, that we teach an election which includes 
 faith. We, therefore, "call attention to this fact." And to 
 throw further light on this point we offer the following 
 from our publications : 
 
 Dr. W alther said at Chicago in 1880 : 
 
 "If it is said that God elected those of whom he foresaw that 
 that they would finally believe, that is correct. However, as 
 
 27 
 
soon as one says : He elected them, because He foresaw that they 
 would finally believe, that is false.— (Minutes, etc., p. 501.) 
 
 Prof. Hoeckhardt : 
 
 "It is the same whether we say : God decreed to save by faith 
 each and every person of the elect, or : God has predestinated to 
 faith and salvation each and every person of the elect. In this 
 case faith represents the intermediate, salvation the ultimate end of 
 the election of Grod.'—CL. u. W. 1880, p. 235.) 
 
 Prof. Yoder has been at some pains to establish har- 
 mony between the canons of the Synod of Dort and our 
 publications. Now, we should very much like to see Calvin's 
 followers abandon that doctrine of which their master him- 
 self professedthat it is a "horrible" doctrine (Calv. Inst. Ill, 
 237;) however, on the strength of what Arts. IX and X of the 
 Canons of Dort say regarding- election, we cannot yet strike 
 hands with them; just as little as we could unite with the 
 Church of Rome, because it also teaches that the bread and 
 wine in the Eucharist are (not signifying) the body and 
 blood of Christ. However, this maueuvre of Prof. Yoder, 
 too, is old. Pres. Beyer of the Eastern Dist. of our Synod, 
 in his opening address at York, Pa., in 1832 has an elabor- 
 ate treatise on this question: What answer shall we make 
 to the charge which is raised-against us — viz., that we are 
 Krypto-Calvinists '? (i. e., Calvinists in disguise.) He takes 
 up our thirteen theses in their order and by offering coun- 
 ter testimony from Calv inistic writers and churches on the 
 main points of difference between them and us, shows to 
 the satisfaction of any impartial mind that the chanre of 
 Caivinistic tendencies in our doctrine is, to say the least, un- 
 founded. We kindly ask Prof. Yoder to study this address. 
 In addition we offer the following : 
 
 Prof. Pieper : 
 
 The constellation, at present, is odd. Formerly Caivinistic er- 
 rors in the article concerning predestination were fought, over 
 against those who placed a predestination unto damnation along- 
 side of the predestination unto salvation, -who denied the universali- 
 ty of the gracious will of God, of the merit of Christ, of the serious 
 efficacy of the means of grace. We do not place a predestination 
 unto damnation alongside of the predestination unto salvation; 
 we teach a gracious will of God which seriously extends to all, a 
 perfect redemption through Christ that is universal, a serious effect 
 of the Word of God upon the hearts of all whose ears are reached by 
 the sound of the gospel. We also teach that the grace of pei 
 
 28 
 
verance is offered to all who have come to faith, so that, if a person 
 is lost, he has brought damnation upon himself, solely by his resist- 
 ance to the operation of the Holy Spirit in the Word and Sacra- 
 ments, and that in opposition to the gracious will of God. How- 
 ever, we reject as unscriptural and unconfessional that definition of 
 election which represents it as having taken place in consequence of 
 foreseen faith. We, on the contrary, contend that, according to the 
 Scriptures and the Confessions, the faith whieh is wrought in time 
 and, in general, the entire spiritual life of those who are saved, are 
 to be placed in such a relation to election that election can and must 
 justly be called a cause of faith and of spiritual life. — (L. & W., vol. 
 27, p. 4.) 
 
 The Synod teaches a doctrine of predestination which 
 disregards the work of our Saviour. The X Art. which 
 Prof. Yoder quotes leaves out Christ entirely; nor does Art. 
 IX refer to Him. What do oue people say ? 
 
 Dr. Walther in the much-abused Minutes of the West 
 Dist. of 1877, p. 25, is put on record thus : 
 
 "In this connection it must be noted, too, that the apostle 
 (Eph. 1:3-6) expressly says, we are elected by Jesus Christ; there- 
 fore, it is a wicked doctrine to say that first election took place with 
 God in eternity, and then He prevailed upon His Son, so to speak, 
 to execute this decree of His. On the contrary, Christ is the eter- 
 nal foundation, and because and, humanly speaking, after God the 
 Father willed to -surrender His dear Son for the lost sinful world, 
 therefore, and not before that, He could, without ceasing to be God, 
 elect all those who should believe in His Son unto the end." 
 
 Prof. Yoder is in a sore plight. He wants faith in- 
 cluded among the causes of election; that the Lutherans 
 will not do for him, nor even the Calvinists. Who will? On- 
 ly men who have discarded the old, glorious banner-truth 
 of the Evangelical Lutheran Church — viz , Soli Deo Gloria ! 
 — i. e., "All glory b"e to God alone;" men who can teach 
 that, in man's conversion and salvation, "much, yea rightly 
 understood, all depends upon the conduct of man;" these 
 and only these will accept Prof. Yoder's doctrine of election 
 in view of foreseen faith. 
 
 PEOF. YODER AND THE "FATHERS." 
 
 Having failed to prove his doctrine of election in view of 
 foreseen faith from the Book of Concord, Prof. Yoder, on page 
 34 of his pamphlet, begins to appeal to the "Fathers." He 
 
 29 
 
writes: "If fathers are to be considered, let us consider fath- 
 ers. All these theologians teach Hn view of faithj as the cor- 
 rect interpretation of the Confessions." We ask: Who 
 requires Prof. Yoder to "consider fathers"? Missouri's 
 teachers do not claim to be fathers, as Prof. Yoder asserts. 
 Their doctrine is that of the Confessions, not of the fathers. 
 However, Prof. Yoder needs the "fathers;" the expression 'in 
 view of faith' occurs in the private writings of many Luth- 
 eran theologians (not all); it does not occur in the Bible, 
 nor in the Confessions. 
 
 That the writings of the "fathers" cannot be binding upon 
 us, Prof. Yoder seems to concede; he looks upon them as "in- 
 terpreters" of the Confessions. This may seem harmless, yet 
 it is a dangerous position for a Lutheran to occupy, especial- 
 ly when the "fathers" are adduced to decide what is the real 
 sense of the Confessions. In that case, we should be bound 
 to the Confessions as the theologians of our Church have in- 
 terpreted them. This is unlutheran; this is reviving the 
 old popish error of traditions. We will accept of the service 
 of our great theologians when they offer us their learning, 
 the fruits of their busy and untiring studies, and thank God 
 that he has blessed our church with such men; but they can 
 never decide for us what our Confessions teach ; that we de- 
 cide for ourselves from the very Confessions. Prof. Yoder 
 mistakes us when he imagines that we are "interpreting" the 
 Confessions, we are simply restating them ; we would not, for 
 aught in this world, bind any one to what we say; but we bind 
 our people to the Confessions "in rebus et phrasibus" i. e., 
 both in regard to the facts stated there and the manner of 
 stating them. We do not write upon our banner an extra- 
 confessional expression, such as "in view of faith" and make 
 that one shibboleth. How were our people to judge of the 
 correctness of our teaching, if in case of doubt or dispute, 
 we were to refer to the interpretations of the fathers? They 
 have not read the works of the "fathers" and the great major- 
 ity of them cannot be expected to have read them, because 
 they are written in a foreign language. Prof. Yoder simply 
 deceives himself when he declares he will not be bound by 
 the fathert: he actually does bind himself to them in this 
 controversy, for he cannot hope to make good his case, except 
 with the "fathers." And even then, all that he can prove by 
 a number of them, is that they used the same phrase which 
 
 30 
 
he has adopted, however, connecting with it quite a different 
 meaning from his. 
 
 Prof. Yoder writes: "All these theologians teach 'in view 
 of faith.' " This is bold. We doubt whether Prof. Yoder 
 even knows the names of "all" much less do we believe that 
 he has even seen the writings of all, and still less, that he has 
 read them all. We have read only a few, and would despair 
 if we were to prove our doctrine by "all these theologians." 
 Here are a few specimens: 
 
 Hutter, the same authority whom Prof. Yoder quotes, writes 
 in his 'Explanation of the Book of Concord' page 1101: "We 
 readily concede that neither faith nor the foreknowledge of 
 faith is the cause of our election." This statement would 
 seem to cast the first gloom over Prof. Yoder's pretended 
 unanimity of the "fathers" on the doctrine of "foreseen faith." 
 Prof. Yoder desires that faith be "included" among the causes 
 of election; ergo, Prof. Yoder ought henceforth to have no 
 use for Hutter. 
 
 Musaeus in 1680 — a hundred years after the final adoption 
 of the Book of Concord — also claims that all theologians up 
 to his day have taught the doctrine of in view of faith; "but," 
 says he, "what kind of a relation to the decree of predestina- 
 tion foreseen faith represents, whether that of a cause, or that 
 of a condition to be fulfilled on the part of the subject of pre- 
 destination, or another? — on this question they have, for 
 many years entertained various ideas, nor have they been 
 able to fully agree on the terms and phases by which this 
 relation might be most fitly described and expressed. "-^- 
 (Comp. L. W. W. Vol. 16, page 50.) Here we even have a 
 "father" that says the "fathers" have not agreed among them- 
 selves as to the best way of expressing their opinions. This 
 is bad for Prof. Yoder's claim: "All these theologians, &c." 
 
 But the practical value of adopting all these theologians 
 will appear still more questionable, by the following illustra- 
 tion- 
 
 Chemnitz, one of the au- 
 thors of the Form of Concord 
 writes: 
 
 "The election of God does 
 not follow after our faith and 
 righteousness, but precedes 
 the same, being the efficient 
 
 Quenstedt, a Lutheran theo- 
 logian, writes: 
 
 "That the consideration of 
 faith, in the view of the di- 
 vine mind, preceded the decree 
 of salvation, or which is the 
 same thing, that men who 
 
 31 
 
cause thereof." — Echiridon, should continue in faith in 
 page 210, sec. 9. Christ, were elected, is proven, 
 
 &c, &c. — Quoted in Luthern 
 Standard, June 19, 1880. 
 
 Let the attentive and patient reader ponder the respective 
 contents of these two counter statements always remember- 
 ing Prof. Yoder's sweeping: assertion : U AU these theologians, 
 &c, &c. Surely, between Chemnitz and Quenstedt, the 
 agreement on the "in view of faith" doctrine, is rather misty. 
 Like the church steeple which the little boy described, it 
 takes, at least, two stout men to see it. Our farmers with 
 their broad common sense when they read over these two quo- 
 tations, will shake their heads and declare that "these here 
 'fathers' are rather somewhat agin each other." 
 
 And another illustration, which makes matters even worse 
 than those preceding. We quote two definitions from Quen- 
 stedt: 
 
 Predestination 
 
 (1.) is an act of the divine 
 will, 
 
 (2.) by which God, before 
 the foundations of the world 
 were laid, 
 
 (3.) not according to our 
 works, 
 
 (4.) but from mere compas- 
 sion. 
 
 (5.) according to his pur- 
 pose and good pleasure which 
 he purposed in himself, 
 
 (6.) in view of Christ's mer- 
 its to be apprehended by faith. 
 
 (7.) ordained unto eternal 
 life, 
 
 (8.) men who by the power 
 of the Holy Ghost, 
 
 (9.) through the preaching 
 of the gospel, 
 
 (10.) perseveringly and fi- 
 
 nally. 
 
 (11.) 
 Christ, 
 
 would believe in 
 
 Reprobation 
 
 (1.) is an act of the most 
 free will of the triune God, 
 
 (2.) by which He before the 
 foundations of the world were 
 laid, 
 
 (3.) 
 
 (4.) from righteous vindic- 
 tior justice, 
 (5.) 
 
 (6.) on account of foreseen 
 final rejection of Christ's mer- 
 its, 
 
 (7.) determined to damn to 
 eternity, 
 
 (8.) those who by their own 
 fault, 
 
 (9.) 
 (10.) 
 
 (11.) 
 tion. 
 
 are fitted to destruc- 
 
 32 
 
(12.) unto the praise of his j (12.) to the praise of his 
 glorious grace. j glorious justice. 
 
 In order to facilitate comparison we have divided these de- 
 finitions and arranged their corresponding terms in parallel 
 columns. The Lutheran reader will, on first view, be some- 
 what bewildered by this exhibition. What! he will exclaim, 
 do these fathers, then, teach a twofold predestination? — Yes, 
 dear reader, so they do. We can refer also to Baier, who in 
 his Positive Theology, has the same arrangements, (Ed. Wal- 
 ther III, page 601, 2-8) to Hollaz, (Exam. Theol, P. Ill, 22- 
 75), to Koenig, (Nucleus Theol. Pos. p. 388-362), &c. Such 
 an arrangement we do not find in our Confessions, and our 
 Lutheran theologians have here gone too far for the common 
 reader. If they are to be regarded as "interpreters" of the 
 Confessions and their "interpretations" endorsed, there ought 
 to be an explanation given, at least at this place. Our Luth- 
 eran Church teaches only one gracious predestination of be- 
 lievers unto life, not a corresponding just predestination of 
 unbelievers unto death. Ohio removes the difficulty in the 
 following heroic manner: "The dogmatical use of the terms 
 predestination and election accords with the truth and is use- 
 ful for the systematic presentation of the doctrine, but it is 
 not available for practical purposes." (Luth. Standard 38, p. 
 170, col. 1.) This means: The dogmaticians speak of elec- 
 tion in a manner that learned professors can understand them, 
 but our common people must take a back seat when they offer 
 their "systematic presentation." Accordingly, Prof. Stell- 
 horn in the tract in which he enlightens the public on "What 
 is the real question in the present controversy on predestina- 
 tion?" with a coolness that is admirable, begins thus: "In 
 this controversy, quite a number of points have been touched 
 and discussed, that are somewhat difficult to be grasped and 
 understood by the average Christian^ unless he possesses an 
 especially penetrating mind and good christian knowledge?"* 
 However, the climax is reached when the "fathers" declare 
 that they do not agree with the Form of Concord. Thus 
 writes Loescher, Theol. thet. p. 258: "The word predestina- 
 tion has indeed a wider signification, yet not in the Bible, but 
 in the Symbolical books. Therefore we again distinguish 
 between the Symbolical and the Biblical meaning. That is 
 a wide, this a narrow one. That has no place here, except to 
 relegate it; for we expound this doctrine out of the Scrip- 
 
 33 
 
tures." Here the exposition which our Form of Concord 
 gives of the Bible doctrine of Election is pronounced un bib- 
 lical by a "father." Enough said. We truly hope that Prof. 
 "Voder will henceforth couple better foresight with his zeal in 
 the defense of the doctrines of our Church. Human author- 
 ity is never altogether reliable. 
 
 Prof. Yoder also quotes from Dr. Aug. Pfeiffer^s "Anti-Cal- 
 vanism," and on page 37 states how highly this book was re- 
 commended in this country some years ago. It will be a great 
 surprise to Prof. Yoder to read that Missouri, too, hailed the 
 publication of this book with delight. We append the "Re- 
 view" of this book as it appeared in the "St. Louis Theologi- 
 cal Monthly" of May, 1881, page 15: 
 
 "St. Paul writes that once there were some who preached 
 Christ, supposing to add afflictions to his bonds; but he adds, 
 Notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, 
 Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will re- 
 joice." (Phil. 1: 15-19.) Of these words of the holy Apostle 
 we were reminded, immediately on seeing brave A. Pfeiffer's 
 Anti-Calvinism in a new garb, we mean, in an English trans- 
 lation. Under present circumstances we at once surmised 
 that this book owed its reappearance principally to the wish, 
 it might serve as a weapon against us in the controversy on 
 Predestination which has lately arisen. We were not, in- 
 deed, deceived. The new introduction confirms, distinctly 
 enough, what we conjectured. Nevertheless, we gladly wel- 
 come the book. We are confident that many of thobe who 
 will peruse it for the very reason of its being intended to add 
 affliction to us, will in this way get a relish for the old Luth- 
 eran theology. Dr. Pfeiffer in this book has thoroughly and 
 victoriously refuted the errors which are characteristically 
 calvinistic. In his presentation of the Lutheran doctrine of 
 Predestination he follows, indeed, the form of doctrine intro- 
 duced into our Church by Aegidius Hunnius, and which rep- 
 resents God's eternal election as having been made intuitu 
 fidei (i. e. in view of faith). But in this work of his he him- 
 self offers sufficient aid for the attentive reader who holds 
 fast to our Confession, to easily correct him on this point by 
 his own words. We, therefore, embrace this opportunity of 
 recommending the book to the English reading public." 
 
 Lastly, Dietrich is called upon the witness-stand to testify 
 against us. It is said that at Conover last January we faih d 
 
 34 
 
to express ourselves on his catechism; although other speak- 
 ers offered to give their time to Prof. Dau, that he might, 
 make answer. How is this? Prof. Dau can show from the 
 paper which he used at that conference, and on which he 
 jotted down the points on which to speak, that he was ready 
 then to make answer as to Dietrich's catechism. Rev. Smith 
 once offered him his time, but as soon as this was done Prof. 
 Cline protested, and to equalize matters, Prof. Cline offered 
 his time to Prof. Doermann. Seeing that his opponents 
 thought that he was taking advantage of them, Prof. Dau re- 
 fused to accept Rev. Smiths offer, and took his seat.* A great 
 noise has been made about this matter which we now hope to 
 hush forever. 
 
 WHAT DOES J. C. DIETRICH'S CATECHISM TEACH ON ELECTION ? 
 
 Repeatedly have we Missourians been asked : Do you 
 endorse what Dietrich's Catechism teaches on election? It 
 seems very strange indeed that we should be required to 
 give an answer to such a question, when it is so well known 
 a fact that we use this catechism in all our churches and 
 schools for the instruction of our own children. But also 
 Prof. Yoder in his pampb'et, p. 38, says: "Also Dietrich's 
 Catechism which they (Missouri) have used for thirty years 
 or more, and whose teaching on election they for a 
 long time endorsed, but will not do so now, although they 
 continue to use it in their school and catechetical classes in 
 this section, teaches this same 'in view of faith' doctrine." 
 As such unfounded assertions are spread out in public 
 print we will here give a clear and unmistakable answer to 
 the above question, and our answer is this : We fully en- 
 dorse Dietrich's Catechism, as in other points so also in the ar- 
 ticle of election, as teaching correct doctrine, and we repudiate 
 the assertion that this catechism teaches an election in fore- 
 sight of faith. Let us see what this catechism does teach 
 on election. Into what relation the catechism places elec- 
 tion and the creation of faith is clear from question 281 : 
 
 "Why is He called the Holy Spirit ? 
 
 "Because He is the author of true holiness, and truly sanctifies 
 all the elect." 
 
 Here the word sanctification comprises the whole work 
 of the Holy Ghost for man's salvation, of course also the 
 kindling and preserving of faith, and election is placed be 
 
 35 
 
fore sanctification. It is presented as a cause from which 
 sanctification is consequent. The catechism here speaks of 
 election like Acts 13:48 — "As many as were ordained" to 
 eternal life believed." They were ordained to eternal life, 
 and so they believed, and the text does not say they be- 
 lieved and so were ordained to eternal life. The catechism 
 does not say those who are sanctified He elects, but contra- 
 riwise, those who are elect He sanctifies. According to 
 this answer sanctification flows from election, and not elec- 
 tion from sanctification, and this excludes the idea of elec< 
 tion in view of faith. So from the very first question iD 
 which the catechism touches on election it is certain that 
 this book does not teach an election in foresight of faith. 
 And in this teaching the catechism is consistent throughout. 
 
 Ques. 321. — "What then is the divine election of grace ? 
 
 "It is that act of Grod by which He, according to the purpose of 
 His will, alone out of His grace and mercy in Christ, has resolved to 
 save all those who shall steadfastly believe in Christ, to the praise 
 of His glorious grace." 
 
 Besides assigning the causes of election the catechism here 
 says who the elect are — namely, the believing Christians, 
 and not the unbelieving, but it is not said because God fore- 
 saw that men would believe, therefore He elected them. To 
 so construe the words is corrupting them and making the 
 catechism contradict itself; for the next question reads : 
 
 "What is the nature of that decree of Grod, according to which 
 He has resolved to save those who believe in Christ ? 
 
 "It is not unconditional, but is so fixed, according to a certain 
 order, as to embrace all the causes and means of our salvation." 
 
 The causes and means, according to question 323, are 
 God's mercy, Christ's merits, and persevering faith. So the 
 catechism includes faith in the elective act as an integral 
 part of it and this excludes the idea of an election in view 
 of faith, because that doctrine presents faith as not being 
 included in the decree of election, but makes it the outside 
 rule by which God was guided and enabled to make a 
 "rational" choice. Such doctrine as that God must have a 
 rule by which He is guided and enabled to make a rational 
 choice is entirely foreign to Dietrich's Catechism. This is 
 still more evident from question 325 : 
 
 "Whence is it then that not all and every person, for whom these 
 means of salvation are designed, is equally chosen to eternal life '! 
 
 36 
 
"It is because God has purposed not to elect them absol\ 
 and uncondionally, but with this appointment and in this oi^r, 
 that they should through the Gospel believe in Jesus Christ, and by 
 true faith in Him be saved. But because the greatest number do 
 not believe, it necessarily follows that only those who believe unto 
 the end, and, therefore, but few are chosen." 
 
 The catechism does not say because they did believe, 
 neither does it say because God foresaw that they would 
 believe. In clear, strong words it says, "that they should 
 believe." The catechism teaches election as unto salva- 
 tion, so also unto faith as the means of appropriating- sal- 
 vation. And that this is biblical language is demonstrated 
 by Eph. 2:10: "We are his workmanship, created in 
 Christ Jesus unto- good works, which God hath before or- 
 dained that we should walk in them." In His election God 
 ordained the elect to walk in good works, and hence to a 
 walk in faith, without which no man can do good works. 
 
 Let the reader pick up the catechism and examine for 
 himself what it teaches. We Missourians fully endorse 
 Dietrich's Categhism. It is our catechism. And yet we 
 will not be bound to Dietrich, because we will not be bound 
 to the writings of any man, living or dead, save only the 
 Bible and the Confessions. 
 
 In this connection we must also note that Dietrich's 
 Catechism does not teach a conditional election, as Prof. 
 Yoder's pamphlet on pages 46 and 47 so emphatically does. 
 In question 322 it says : 
 
 "It is not unconditional, but is so fixed, according to a certain 
 order, as to embrace all the causes and means of our salvation." 
 
 The catechism rejects an unconditional election, yet 
 does not say that election is conditional, but describes it as 
 "so fixed, according to a certain order." That is something 
 very different from teaching a conditional election. No- 
 where does the catechism call faith the condition of elec- 
 tion, but it very distinctly teaches that faith is the free gift 
 of God, and hence it does not regard faith as a condition 
 which man must fulfill before he can be chosen to eter- 
 nal life. 
 
 Ques. 283 — "Can no one in his conversion to God do anything of 
 his own power ? 
 
 "Not at all, for just on this account I believe that I cannot by 
 my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ my Lord, or come 
 to Him." 
 
 37 
 
Ques. 286 — "Whence then does conversion to Grod and faith in 
 Jesus Christ come ? 
 
 "It is a gracious gift of the Holy Ghost, who works both in us 
 by His mighty power." 
 
 After making those positive and unqualified statements 
 the catechism cannot further on teach a conditional elec- 
 tion without contradicting itself. In this point also we Mis- 
 sourians fully endorse Dietrich s Catechism. 
 
 Yet we do not accuse a man of teaching wrong simply 
 and only because he uses the expression, faith is the condi- 
 tion in election, because a man may connect a right meaning 
 with this expression. We distinguish between a condition 
 which God Himself fulfills and between a condition which 
 man must comply with. If a man says, God's election is 
 conditioned by that faith which God Himself creates, pre- 
 serves and finishes, that is clearly not teaching wrong- it is 
 only using language in which there is very little meaning. 
 If I say, I choose these men to be soldiers under condition 
 that they are furnished with a grey coat which I myself 
 provide them, every one will easily see that there is no real 
 condition made there, because I myself both make and ful- 
 fill the condition. I migt as well say, I will take these 
 men and dress them in grey and make them soldiers. But 
 it becomes something very different if I say, I will choose 
 men to be my soldiers under condition that they are 
 dressed in grey. Then the meaning implied is that I do 
 not furnish them the grey suit — they must do it themselves. 
 That is stipulating a condition in the real sense of the word, 
 a condition with which the othee party must comply. 
 
 Now, this is the whole tendency of the doctrine of an 
 election in foresight of faith, that when it is consistently 
 carried out it imperatively demands the stipulating of a real 
 condition, which man must fulfill by his own power or ac- 
 tion, or to whose fulfillment man must in some way con- 
 tribute his part, as the Ohio Synod teaches that conversion 
 is dependent not alone on the grace of God, but also on the 
 conduct of man. r l his makes man in part the author of his 
 own conversion, and this doctrine we reject, because by it 
 the doctrines of man's total depravity and of salvation by 
 the grace of God alone are overthrown. 
 
 Dietrich's Catechism holds the middle ground between 
 the unconditional election of the Calvinists and the condi- 
 tional election of the Rationalists and Synergists, and this 
 
 38 
 
is the ground which Missouri occupies. We teach neith- 
 er a conditional nor an unconditional election, and say 
 with the Book of Concord : 
 
 "The eternal election God not only foresees and foreknows the 
 salvation of the elect, but through His gracious will and good pleas- 
 ure in Christ Jesus, is also a cause which procures, works, facilitates 
 and promotes our salvation and whatever pertains to it; and upon 
 this our salvation is so firmly grounded that the gates of hell shall 
 not prevail against it."— (2d N. Market Ed., p. 712.) 
 
 It is true that at the Free English conference held in Grav- 
 elton, Mo., Aug. 17-20, 1872, in which Drs. Walther, F. A. 
 Schmidt and P. C. Henkel took part, the subject of election 
 was not discussed. It is hardly probably that any one ever 
 seriously adduced the presence of Dr. Henkel at that confer- 
 ence as a proof of his agreement with Dr. Walther in the 
 doctrine of Predestination. Still it might not be amiss to say 
 here that in the minutes of that conference that express the 
 belief of Dr. Henkel, there are contained sentences, to which 
 another member of the same conference, who has since that 
 time fallen into the error of synergism, cannot uprightly sub- 
 scribe. Thus we read on page 7 of these minutes: "Man is 
 only the object that is to be converted, and he dees not him- 
 self co-operate towards it." 
 
 "We have here to do with a great mystery, because it seems 
 as though it were the fault of God, if a person is not con- 
 verted. . It seems as though God passed by some men. But 
 we hold fast that a converted pei'son is such only by the grace 
 of God ; whilst an unconverted person is such by his own 
 fault, because he wantonly resists the grace of God. * * * It 
 is the doctrine of total depravity and corruption after the fall 
 which we here assert, not only in opposition to such gross er- 
 rors as those by which original sin and our natural depravity 
 are altogether denied, but also over against more refined 
 aberrations from the ttqith, as when some degree of spiritual 
 faculties, or some spark of the life of God, is ascribed to 
 natural man." 
 
 On page 8: "The 'natural man' certainly continues to be 
 
 such a natural man^ until he is eonverted and changed by the 
 
 grace of God; and hence, so long as he remains a natural or 
 
 . unconverted man, the things of the spirit of God must also 
 
 remain foolishness unto him and cannot be received by him." 
 
 The italics are ours. These few sentences serve. to set forth 
 
 39 
 
the scriptural, confessionals views held by Dr. Henkel on the 
 subject of conversion. After all, it is the doctrine of conver- 
 sion that forms the main point of controversy between Mis- 
 souri and those who combat her. Contrast with the expres- 
 sions above quoted, the false, synergistic expressions of those 
 who teach an election "in view cf faith." Thus: 
 
 "Men themselves made the difference, some yield to the 
 converting influence of the Holy Grhost, permitting them- 
 selves to be converted, while others wilfully resist." (Stand- 
 ard 39, 338.) 
 
 "God then does not take away that kind of resistance, but 
 man must stop it or he cannot be converted." (Standard 
 40, 242.) 
 
 "This is the indifferent state into which converting grace 
 places mei and in which they can either resist or not resist" 
 (Magazine 3, 7.) 
 
 "Ohio believes, that that something else upon which also it 
 still depends whether man is converted and saved, is not again 
 grace, a new grace restricted to few, as if there were still 
 something lacking in the universal grace, but that it is to be 
 sought elsewhere" (namely in the conduct of man.) — (Kirch- 
 enzeitung, April 18, 1891.) 
 
 Thus it can be seen that Dr. Henkel was far from agreeing 
 with the synergistic errors of the to-day in-view-of-faith 
 teachers. But to come to his position 'on Election.' He did, 
 for all we know, write the letter to Dr. Schmidt quoted on 
 page 39 of "The Situation." Now, mark you, Rev. Yoder 
 plainly intimates that Father Henkel would not have asked 
 Dr. Schmidt to come to Conover, if they had not been agreed. 
 He portrays Dr. Henkel as a consistent Lutheran teacher, 
 who would have nothing to do with a man who had fallen 
 into most grievous error on the important doctrine ; of Elec- 
 tion.' This has always been our impression of this great 
 theologian. It cannot be denied tnat at the time, he wrote 
 the letter quoted, he thought the Synod of Missouri, and with 
 it the Augsburg Confession of Missouri and his successor in 
 Gravelton, Rev. L. M. Wagner, had fallen into error 'on Elec- 
 tion.' But was this his fixed and settled opinion until the 
 time of his death in 1889? Did he never have a chance to 
 learn otherwise? In the funeral oration on Dr. Henkel, 
 preached by Rev. L. M. Wagner and published in "Our 
 Church Paper," Oct. 30, 1889, the following statements were, 
 
 40 
 
as far as we know, allowed to pass unchallenged. "I had 
 promised to be with him next spring to work with him for a 
 season. * * * The Missouri Synod has lost a true friend 
 in him. He was one with us in faith and would fain have 
 been one with us in synodieal connection." 
 
 That Pastor Wagner could make these statements without 
 fear of successful contradiction, he well knew, as he was pre- 
 pared to substantiate his assertions. This is evident from a 
 letter dated Oct. 14th, 1893, and written to a relative of Dr. 
 Henkel's, in Conover. The portion of the letter in question 
 reads as follows: 
 
 "As to Father Henkel's position, I do not see how that can 
 be called into question. The letters I received from him in 
 1888 and 1889, I have gotten misplaced in my removal to 
 Barton county and back; but in them he stated frequently 
 that he wanted me to give my consent to go to Conover and 
 become a teacher in the .College, and that he wanted to bring 
 that school and the whole Tennessee Synod, or as much of it 
 as would stand by pure Lutheran doctrine and practice, into 
 connection with our Missouri Synod. He also spoke of there 
 being some men in connection with Concordia College who 
 were not laboring according to the design on which the 
 school had been founded; and he hoped to get them discon- 
 nected with it. And it was to take one of their places that 
 he wanted me, as soon as the vacancy should occur. We did 
 not say anything in that correspondence on any doctrine, for 
 he knew our doctrine then, I suppose, on all points, and there 
 was no more need of speaking on the doctrine of Election 
 than of the Lord's Supper or Baptism. But a long time ago, 
 about the time Ohio sprang that new doctrine of Election, 
 Rev. Henkel did write to me and say that he then knew noth- 
 ing of our position on Election only what he saw in the 
 "Lutheran Standard," and he stated that if what the "Stand- 
 ard" imputed to us was really our position, then he could not 
 agree with us. And who could blame him? Who could 
 agree with us, if what Ohio said was true? But he found out 
 that Ohio was misrepresenting us. And these are the facts 
 in the case of our correspondence, and I will swear to them 
 before a magistrate, if it is necessary." 
 
 In view of these facts — facts well known to every one that 
 was in the confidence of Dr. Henkel — there can be no doubt 
 that in the latter years of his life, Dr. Henkel learned to know 
 
 41 
 
Missouri's doctrine on Election, and convinced of the truth 
 of the same, was endeavoring to make arrangements to work 
 hand-in-hand with her. 
 
 Prof. Yoder quotes from "Sermon Notes on Election" (in 
 possession of Mr. J. T. Miller, Conover, N. C): "Faith only 
 the condition in Election," while in a copy of these notes, of 
 which Mr. Miller certifies that it is "a correct copy," we read: 
 "Faith only a condition of Election"— a discrepancy wlrch 
 the reader may explain for himself. With reference to these 
 notes, Mr. Miller writes: "A copy of notes taken by me from 
 a sermon preached by Rev. P. C. Henkel, D. D., on the sub- 
 ject of Election." They are then not Dr. Henkel's notes, but 
 notes jotted down by a hearer during the delivery of the ser- 
 mon. On the other hand, Dr. Henkel's notes, written by 
 himself, lie before us, and there we read the following state- 
 ments that are decisive: 
 
 "There was nothing foreseen in man that could give rise to 
 Election." 
 
 "Faith is not the ground or cause of Election. It is the opera- 
 tion of God, Col. 2:12; 2 Pet. 1:3 4. "It is the gift of Cod," Eph. 2:8. 
 In imparting instruction on the subject of Election, Dr. 
 Henkel,read the XI. Art. F. C. with Rev. J. M. Smith, then 
 a student of theology, and said that that was better than he 
 oouldgive in way of explanation: (It is a well-known fact 
 that the B. C. does not contain the expression "in view of 
 faith.") Rev. Smith denies ever having- said that Dr. Hen- 
 kel taught him "in view of faith." What he did say was 
 that David Henkel had used that expression; and that as P. 
 C. Henkel often used his father's exegesis, it was likely that 
 he used the same. "I have no recollection of ever hearing 
 P. C. Henkel use that phrase 'in view of faith,' " Rev.Smith 
 now asserts. 
 
 Of David Henkel, it can be seen that he made use ,of 
 the "in view of faith." But that he does not altogether 
 agree with the modern synergistic defenders of this expres- 
 sion, can be as readily seen. Instead of using Phil. 2:12, as 
 do the synergists, to show that man must do something 
 towards his salvation, he says in refuting this in answer to 
 Joseph Moore, pp 155-156: 
 
 "The Philippians, whom the apostles exhorted to work out 
 their own salvation, were already regenerated. * * * One 
 thing is to work, in order to be justi led before Cod; but another is 
 
 42 
 
to work, in order to appear, and be blameless, and harmless without 
 rebuke in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation. Not the for- 
 mer, but the latter, is the reason why the apostle exhorted the Phil- 
 ippians to work out their own salvation." 
 
 What Rev. David Henkel meant when calling- faith the 
 "condition" of election, we may in part gather from his 
 calling "repentance a condition of justification," and quot- 
 ing Acts 2:88: "Repent and be baptized." (See Fragment 
 VI. p 164.) From this it would seem that Henkel regarded 
 repentance a condition just as we might call baptism a con- 
 dition, namely, as the way and the means unto justification, 
 and not such a condition which man must fulfill or to whose 
 fulfilment man must do his part. We do not believe that he 
 would have consented to reduce the expression "in view of 
 faith" to "in view of nan's conduct towards the Gospel." 
 Gerhardt, Quenstedt, Hunnius and others did use the ex- 
 pression in view of faith, but at the same time they con- 
 demned it as a heresy to teach that man could contribute 
 something towards conversion. Would David Henkel have 
 sanctioned the doctrine that conversion is in part depend- 
 ent on man's conduct? Equity requires us to look well in- 
 to what company we place those who are fallen asleep and 
 no more able to speak for themselves. 
 
 In concluding this section relating to Prof. Yoder's 
 vain attempt to define the position of the Tennessee Synod 
 as he would like to have it, we would call attention to a 
 grave omission on his part. His readers in that Synod are, 
 no doubt, pained to see that he makes no reference to what 
 might be termed the public writings of the Synod. "Our 
 Church Paper" is never mentioned. Why? It is the pa- 
 per that in many quarters is looked upon as the organ of 
 the Tennessee Synod; it has been recommended time and 
 time again by her pastors and finds its way into the homes 
 of her members. Why is no reference made to this influen- 
 tial paper that, during the predestination controversy, pub- 
 lished many articles pertaining to the subject? Ah, yes! 
 Why indeed? Let Dr. F. H Schmidt answer. He writes 
 to a Tennessee pastor under date of Aug. 17, 1890 : 
 
 "1 was not a little surprised to find that you are not all on the 
 
 Missouri side of the question; as I have been reading the "O. P. P." 
 
 all along and found nothing but flings there at the "In View of 
 
 Faith." 
 
 43 
 
As far as Prof. Schmidt could judge from the public 
 writing's of the Tenn. Synod, he thought that you "were all 
 on the Mo. side of the question." Too bad isn't it, gentle- 
 men, that he should misjudge you in that way? 
 
 But our "Church Paper" should now be allowed to talk 
 thus : 
 
 Moreover, is there anything like strict harmony in the teachings 
 of the following questions and answers which we take from a little 
 work entitled ''The Doctrine of Predestination," Columbus, Ohio, 
 and the subjoined declarations which we take from the Book of Con- 
 cord ? The former read thus : 
 
 55. "What then directed God in His selection of the persons to be 
 ordained unto salvation ? 
 
 "Ans. — Faith in Christ Jesus." — Page 8. 
 
 93. "How now would you briefly define God's gracious election ? 
 
 "Ans. — To be clear and exact, thus : Election is that eternal and 
 unchangeable decree of God's grace in which God, for the sake of 
 Christ alone, has ordained unto sonship and salvation all those per- 
 sons of whom He has foreseen that they will finally believe in Christ 
 Jesus." — Page 9. 
 
 Thus read the latter : 
 
 "Before the world began, before we existed, indeed before the 
 foundation of the world, when certainly we could have done nothing 
 good, we were elected to salvation by grace in Christ according to the 
 purpose of God. — Rom. 9, 11; 2 Tim. 1, 9. And by this doctrine, all 
 false opinions and errors concerning the powers of our natural will, 
 are overthrown; since, before the world began, God decreed and or- 
 dained in His counsel, that He Himself by the power of His Holy Spir- 
 it, through the Word, would effect and work in us all that belongs to 
 our con version." — Page 718. 
 
 "The following doctrine is, therefore, false and erroneous — name- 
 ly, that not the mercy of God alone, and the most holy merit of Christ 
 are the cause, but that in us also there is a cause of the election of God, 
 on account of which God has elected us to everlasting life. For, not 
 only before we had done any good, but also before we were born, yea, 
 before the foundation of the world, He elected us in Christ." — Page 
 726. 
 
 Do not these declarations come in conflict with the teachings of 
 the questions and answers just quoted ? 
 
 Still the Standard seems to think a "practical seminary" is necessa- 
 ry down South, to teach and inculcate these innovations, and im- 
 provements (?) on Christ, the Apostles, and Confessions of the Church. 
 —[Our Church Paper, Jan. 3, 1887. 
 
 A.s to the charge against Rev. Smith, that he tells an 
 untruth when he says that he has not changed his views, 
 he makes the succinct statement : 
 
 44 
 
' 'At one of the pastoral meetings held during 1 890, it was charged 
 upon the leader in debate that he was Calvinistic and with Missouri, 
 and what more confirmed this view was, that a pastor read three ques- 
 tions from the Westminster Catechism to this effect : 'Does God de- 
 sire the salvation of all ?' 'Did Christ die for all ?' 'Does God not 
 pass by the greater number of mankind and leave them to be 
 damned ?' and the leader would not answer. I then firmly thought 
 he was a Calvinist, and at our next meeting an effort was made on my 
 part to rebut his position by any reference to the Bible and Luther- 
 an writers that could be at hand. Having previously seen the min- 
 utes of Concordia English District of the Ohio Synod of 1882, I pro- 
 cured them and marked what the Lutheran Church (according to 
 Ohio) had to say, viz : God has redeemed all, preaches the Word to 
 all and selects those who believe, and since the paragraph begins : 
 'The Lutheran Church,' * * I, of course, jotted down, 'Luth.' 
 The 'Mo.' mark was for my eye to read what she taught (according to 
 Ohio) and not to condemn her. In a word, I did not know then 
 what Mo . taught, except what Ohio had to say in the Standard and 
 minutes — namely, that God selects some and, Calvin-fashion, passes 
 by the rest and does not desire the salvation of all, but only a select 
 few. Therefore, a false impression as to Mo. was made. Later, 
 when I had more light from Mo., 1 thought differently of Mo. As to 
 Mo. I have changed since 1 see she is not Calvinistic. As to the phrase, 
 'in view of faith,' I see that though it can be understood in the right 
 sense, it is liable to mislead and is not in the Confessions, and I, with 
 hundreds of ministers of the Lutheran Church, have dropped the 
 expression and use other ways of speaking of this doctrine. As to 
 the doctrine, I have not changed my views, but have dropped the 
 unconfessional way of explaining it." 
 
 Prof. Toder's indignation at the thought that we "Mis- 
 sourians" should become offended when he and his col- 
 leagues sign a paper giving vent to their pent up feelings, 
 is entirely misplaced. Aside from the fact that it did seem 
 "powerfully strange" to many honest hearts in the audi- 
 ence to see extremes meeting — Tennessee and Ohio! We 
 Missourians were not offended. We were grieved. ''Why?" 
 Because it "blasted the last hope of long looked and 
 prayed-for peace and unity with our opponents." We re- 
 mind the professor that at the very start of the Conference, 
 before there had been any discussion upon the subject proper, 
 one of the signers of this paper in question tried ho intro- 
 duce a thesis to supersede the regularly appointed theses, 
 
 45 
 
having this import, "that we, the Missourians, have broken 
 historic connection with the Lutheran Church, etc.' Was 
 such a course calculated to reassure us that the end and 
 aim of our Free Conferences was to be attained: namely, to 
 compose differences and get together, or was it designed to 
 "shake Mo?" When the discussions, at the will of the ma- 
 jority, had broken loose from all restraint of theses; when 
 the subject had not been half discussed; when the "shaking- 
 scene" had not been a stupendous success, was it in order 
 to cut the Gordian knot with such a paper? Without fair, 
 honest, prayerful discussion the die has been cast and the 
 opinion promulgated. "It was our duty," says Pastor Yo- 
 der. What! are Lutheran Christians blindly lead thus by 
 their pastors tha^i a mere expression of opinion on the part 
 of their pastors will sway them even as a reed? We do not 
 believe it. Do honest Lutheran hearts long to hear the 
 pure doctrine of their church discussed and defended? We 
 think they do. Do they wish to cause schism and division 
 by cutting off the only chance of ever coming near togeth- 
 er? We hope not. And yet Prof. Yoder can write: <k We 
 signed and read this paper because we claim that it was not 
 only our right and privilege, but also our duty to do so un- 
 der the circumstances!! " Yes it is indeed a bad spirit that 
 would suppress free discussion and calumniate those who 
 defend their views. 
 
 As for "being attacked by very harsh and severe lan- 
 guage, and by personal assault," we do not understand 
 what the gentleman means, but we do solemnly protest 
 against the connection in which the statement is made, as 
 if one of "those Missourians" had been guilty of such a 
 thing! 
 
 In conclusion, the authors of this pamphlet ask to be 
 granted a liberty which they hope will not be taken amiss. 
 The cry in our part of the country is: Adhere to the old 
 Tennessee Synod! Good!! The old faith which the old 
 Tennessee Synod in the days of David Henkel, for instance, 
 maintained over against the lax Lutheran bodies of the 
 Southeast, is worthy of being propagated. However, the 
 
 46 
 
new Tennessee Synod has done the very thing- from which 
 David Henkel was instrumental in saving the old Tennessee 
 Synod: it has gone over into a general body, with which, 
 according to its own profession, it does not agree. May 
 tho Lord speed the da y when the Tennessee Synod is again 
 the %< old" Synod which it used to be!