# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_April 1860_S116
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

116 From the Wisconsin Synod.

in one mind and in one and the same judgment, 1 Cor. 1:10, does not
hold its members bound to the same doctrinal views? Is such a synod
Lutheran in truth, or only in name? No one, on the grounds just set
forth, can assume anything other than the latter, and no one will
seriously want to maintain that the Synod of Northern Illinois in truth
stands upon the Augsburg Confession.

Yet the pastor of the Wisconsin Synod also cites a provision of the
constitution of the Synod of Northern Illinois concerning the
professors of theology at Springfield, and holds this to be sufficient
with regard to the official standpoint of the theological faculty
there. But I cannot help regarding the words of that provision —
according to which the professor of theology, upon entering office,
must solemnly declare: "I believe that the Augsburg Confession and
Luther's Catechisms are a brief summary and a correct explanation of
the fundamental doctrines of the Word of God" — I cannot help regarding
this formula, according to the well-known manner of thinking and
speaking in all the districts of the General Synod, as insufficient and
meaningless. For it obviously remains entirely up to the professor,
according to this formula, which doctrines of the Word of God he
chooses to regard as fundamental doctrines and to teach as such. But if
he holds, for example, the doctrine of Baptism and of the Lord's Supper
to be no fundamental doctrines — which is indeed the prevailing view in
the whole General Synod — then, according to the formula, he is not
obligated to find them "briefly contained" and "correctly explained" in
the Augsburg Confession. This understanding is unanswerably confirmed
by practice.

And thus the conclusion which that member of the Wisconsin Synod draws
from the above words — namely, that according to them a Springfield
professor of theology declares under oath that in his conviction "the
Augsburg Confession and Luther's Catechisms contain nothing else than
the fundamental doctrines of the Bible" — appears as a mistake. This
understanding of the matter is also the mildest one. For if it were as
the brother in Wisconsin claims, it would surely be difficult for the
theological faculty at Springfield to clear itself of the reproach of
perjury. Or else, let some Springfield professor of theology once
publicly, in express words, confess only to the doctrines of the
Augsburg Confession concerning Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and the
Sabbath, and reject and condemn the opposing doctrines after the
example of this symbol — and if his synod then approves such conduct
and acknowledges that the man has acted according to his oath of
office, then I will grant that the pastor of the Wisconsin Synod is
right and I am wrong.

Is it, then, certain that the Synod of Northern Illinois in deed and in
truth does not stand upon the Augsburg Confession, but in reality
denies it; is it further certain that there is no guarantee whatsoever
that at Springfield the students of theology are taught the pure
doctrine of the unadulterated confession and of the clear Word of God;
indeed, is there, judging from the whole public standing of the
professors of theology at Springfield, cause to fear that in reality the