# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1875_S25
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

— 25 —

you become of the same conviction as I, overnight, then I will, in the hope that this will still finally happen, remain with you yet. Such a member must continue to testify against it in public synod and in periodicals, and may not conceal his goal, that the synod must at last reject the false doctrine with him, or he must withdraw from the synodical body. Admittedly there are those who declare they would withdraw, and then do not go. So someone can still be a member of such a synod under protest, as long as his testimony is not forbidden him and he may still hope that it will bear fruit. When the moment of withdrawal has come, one must surely leave to the conscience of the person concerned. We have now thoroughly clarified the principles that apply to church fellowship between different bodies; how are they now to be applied to membership in congregations and synods and to individual members of synods? Answer: There is no difference regarding church fellowship between individuals and a body; for a body is only a plurality of individuals. If it is sin for a whole body in a given case to practice church fellowship, so it is also for an individual. And if the call [Beruf] of a congregation makes it a duty to join a body not faithful to the confession, such a call cannot be accepted; for if the call obliges to something sinful, we recognize precisely by that that it is no divine call. Not only where false doctrine is led, but also where one knows that the right confession is led only in the mouth, one cannot possibly join. The same holds for joining congregations. It betrays great levity when congregation members settle where they find no orthodox congregations. Still greater levity it is when someone knows well that it is a congregation of false belief, and yet enters it knowingly. The practice of our church confirms that it was not content with a mere confession of the mouth where church fellowship took place. The Interimists would have sworn a thousand oaths that they would adhere to the Augsburg Confession. But so great was the conscientiousness of our fathers that they were not admitted at all to signing, because their contradictory position was known in advance. Nowadays one thinks one has achieved wonders when a synod confesses the Augsburg Confession with the mouth. It is an ungodly laxity when a synod accepts the Book of Concord and has not even read it, to say nothing of understood it. A synod becomes orthodox only by becoming aware of the pure doctrine, accepting it and bringing it into life. The Council has indeed also made the confession of the mouth, but in practice has proved the opposite, namely by not carrying out the doctrine of the confession. In accepting the call to a congre-