# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1857_S395
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

[p. 395]

...a religious colloquy is to be reached — it must instead be carried
through to the end, as it began, by writing and counter-writing; we did
not ourselves call it forth; let the opponent be pressed to the
alternative of abandoning either the shameful error or the pretended
cover of the Symbolical Books!

Suppose, however, that the apple of the eye of the Confession were to
remain untouched by such a church court: even then it is still not clear
why we, in a land where the congregations can be drawn in as mature
participants in church governance, as the nature of Christ's institution
of grace requires, should put such a court in place of a general synod —
especially since the objection raised in the 5th Buffalo Synodical
Letter applies more to the internal and external constitution of certain
other synods in this respect, but by no means to ours, and since the
church court, as they conceive it, must itself not infrequently take
refuge in a general synod. And what then, if that general synod itself
became divided — which could easily happen at any time — in matters that
are not adiaphora [things indifferent], matters that surely never can be
decided by majority vote, but only by the clear and universally
intelligible pronouncement of the Word of God, and a part of it opposed
this? How many other paths, accompanied by far fewer difficulties, stand
open to us for seeking counsel for troubled consciences in doubtful cases
before the convening of a district or general synod — whereby we can
always choose men best acquainted with the matter in dispute! It is the
opponents' principle of subordinating the Christian estate to a
ceremonial-legal church government that recognizes no right of local
congregations and no freedom of choice on this point — as was shown by
the, in its main tendency wholly unsurprising, proceedings in the Detroit
affair.

Since, moreover, the Synodical Letter asserts right from the outset that
neither the general church court nor any other possible arbitration
tribunal, here or from Germany, may or can concern itself with a decision
on doctrine in the case that has arisen between us and the Buffalo
Synod, it thereby makes it utterly impossible for us to enter, in any
way whatsoever, into its proposal. The intention that actually lies
behind this — in a manner worthy of Grabau — is of course none other than
to shift the churchly-evangelical standpoint and to push upon us, in its
place, a juridical one, according to which, purely externally, a law is
to be recognized as valid for so-called splits and factionalists
[*Rottirer*] among Lutherans, without any regard for the causes existing
in, and moving from, conscience. Christendom has, unfortunately, been
led to believe that peace is being sought, and it is falsely and
persistently claimed that Missouri has hitherto cut off such [peace
efforts], while we, on the contrary, have constantly been evaded — out
of a fearful awareness of Buffalo's own betrayal and guilt — whenever we
have called for an honest discussion. With one voice and with public
censure we reject, for the honor of God and the sake of immortal souls,
this hypocritical and shameless offer, which seeks to make us into
people already condemned beforehand. The correspondence between our
General Presidium and Mr. v. Rohr, as well as the latter's low attacks
on the editorship of *Der Lutheraner* [the Synod's newspaper] through the
*Informatorium*, regarding this matter, rest on a complete
misunderstanding. On our part...