# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_October 1864_S295
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Two Documents from the Prussian Lutheran Church.    295

require, not years, but decades. From this standpoint we believe we owe our erring brethren a forbearing love and patience, the refusal of which would be for us a sin against the grace that has itself borne with us so long; and this time of love and patience does not, it seems to us, appear yet to be at an end with regard to our Prussian brethren either, especially in view of the many personal circumstances and historical conditions which in Prussia have favored the rise of various errors, and which now make the overcoming of them more difficult.

If, therefore, the Synod at present — for the reason that individual members of it have not yet fully worked their way through to sufficient clarity in the pending doctrinal questions — should not yet be in a position to fulfill the petitions addressed to it for a more decisive rejection of the errors in question, then we are prepared, from the standpoint indicated above, to maintain our connection and fellowship with the Synod as heretofore, and in the hope of a later unity in doctrine; but as the conditions indispensably necessary for this, and as consequences flowing simply and directly from our whole standpoint of conscience, we believe we must nevertheless place the following petitions before the reverend Synod:

1) That the position of faith and conscience taken by us and expressed here be recognized by the Synod as admissible and legitimate within its bounds;

2) That the Synod do nothing that would amount to a virtual abrogation or disavowal of this our position. That is:

a) That the Synod not declare the doctrinal questions in question, so far as they are for us the object of the struggle, to be so-called open questions*), nor still less, by any act whatever, place itself on the side of the party of the Supreme Church Council, but that the Synod acknowledge the honest, biblical and symbolical discussion and eventual decision of the disputed doctrinal points as its continuing sacred duty;

b) that the Synod, until the pending doctrinal controversies within its bosom are decided, in no way expect us to abandon ourselves and our congregations to the influences of false doctrine — such as might perhaps be asserted by individual members of our church body or of the Supreme Church Council, for example on the occasion of church visitations and the like — but permit us to secure ourselves personally and locally against this (concerning which, in particular, we are prepared to come to an arrangement corresponding to all fair considerations both of brotherly love and of ecclesiastical order);

c) that the Synod not, against its own members in Prussia

*) We confess we do not understand how the dear brothers Brunn and Hein, if they demand no more than this, can avoid letting the doctrinal questions in question count after all as open questions. It seems to us that these worthy men are confusing the Christian bearing with the erring with a bearing with false doctrine itself.