# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_Juni 1855_S182
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

182 Voices of the Brethren in Germany
on Our Reply to the Letter of Admonition from the
Leipzig Conference

Already in the first issue of this journal we reported an opinion publicly expressed about our reply to the Leipzig and Fürth Conference in the “Kirchen- und Schulblatt,” published in Saxony by Prof. Dr. Kahnis. From issues of the “Kirchenblatt für die ev.-luth. Gemeinen in Preußen” available to us, and from the second quarterly issue of this year of the Guericke-Rudelbach journal, we see that the editors of these church publications have also reviewed our reply and expressed their views on it.

1. After Pastor Ehlers, in the first-named paper, gave a summary of our reply and finally quoted the following passage from it: “We believe that this godless public exercise of excommunication against us has already sufficiently demonstrated how recklessly, how unjustly, and how papistically Pastor Grabau administers that church discipline which a poor sinner should exercise only with trembling hands”—Pastor Ehlers adds: “We cannot refrain from publicly agreeing with this opinion of our Missouri brethren, and we must confess that we can readily understand how the Missourians could have been tempted to answer in blunt language the many insulting statements with which Pastor Grabau maligns them. On the other hand, we cannot understand how men who speak as Pastor Grabau does can feel injured when similar language is used against them, if they themselves use such language in simplicity of heart and for the sake of the cause and the truth. Luther calls himself a rough fellow; but he was one in all sincerity, and therefore he could also endure blunt language.” *)

In what follows, Pastor Ehlers explains that on one point in the doctrine of the holy preaching office he cannot agree with us. Since, however, we do not yet have the conclusion of his discussion, we shall postpone until a later time communicating and answering the objections raised by this dear man.

2. Finally, Professor Dr. Guericke reviews our reply in the following words:

*) Pastor v. Rohr, in his so-called “compelled correction” (Inform., vol. 4, no. 11), has attempted to prove that the Missouri Synod spoke against the Buffalo Synod in the same way that Pastor Grabau spoke against ours. Pastor v. Rohr, however, ventured to create the appearance that he could prove this only by citing, as the opinion of the “Missourians” concerning the church at Buffalo, an opinion expressed by Pastor Bürger at a time when he himself was an opponent of the “Missourians”—indeed, from a writing directed no less against the Missourians than against Pastor Grabau!—We ask the impartial reader to take note of this. L. u. W.