# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_Januar 1860_S7
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Preface to the 1860 Volume.    7

...ism are still the old ones, and repeated reflection on the matter has not yet been able to convince me of their correctness . . But this I could wish, that all opponents of Chiliasm would bring themselves to recognize, in such Christians as the Neuendettelsau brethren, despite their Chiliasm, full brothers in the faith, rather than distrusting them and regarding them as though they were, as it were, half of another faith. That would be a wrong; may the Lord keep us from making ourselves guilty of it." It is very natural that the "Freimund" should, with great joy, promptly communicate to its readers this letter of indulgence from the pen of an Ehlers. From the next following issue of the "Kirchenblatt" (of October 15 of last year) we learn that Ehlers has received two letters in which his remarks are disapproved, in one of which, among other things, the writer declares: "You are altogether overlooking, this time, what you yourself would surely otherwise maintain — the morbid character of the Chiliastic view . . As for Löhe, I feel myself, ever since I read his much-discussed sermon, inwardly separated from him in a certain way, to my heartfelt sorrow; and the word, 'You have another spirit than we,' has forced itself upon me; but I thank my God that I am not called and compelled, in the midst of the present ferment, to pronounce a final judgment on Löhe's position toward the Church . . Bauer's explanation seems to me rather weak. They confess Chiliasm as their doctrine, but not as an article of faith. But what sort of doctrine, pray, is that in a sermon, which is not to be regarded as an article of faith? And what sort of hope is that, which does not rest upon an article of faith! — The crux of the matter lies in the question: May such a Chiliasm be preached among us? And what would we do if one of our (Prussian-Lutheran) pastors had preached Löhe's sermon, and a complaint about it were then raised from the congregation?" — By these rejoinders Consistorial Councillor Ehlers has found himself compelled to act as advocate for the Chiliasts and to demonstrate the harmlessness of these dreamers. May God preserve the dear man, lest he, in his intention of preventing the unloving treatment of the Chiliasts and the outbreak of the fire of discord and schism already smoldering beneath the surface of the Prussian-Lutheran Church, should himself run the risk of falling prey to error. Satan is cunning; if he cannot get at a sound teacher from the left, he tries it from the right. —

To return now to the representatives, named above, of a threefold opposition which we experience within our own Church (for the struggle with those standing outside is an inheritance from the fathers, which indeed everyone takes up as soon as he wishes truly to bear the name Lutheran) — as regards the party of the Luth. Observer, that is, that of the General Synod, we need on our part no particular defense or justification. Whoever grants us the right to be Lutherans must at the same time hold us not only entitled but also sacredly bound