# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_October 1864_S303
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Two Documents from the Prussian Lutheran Church.    303

but destroyed. Nor did they gain any different conviction from the letter that was read, and had to declare those principles reprehensible. Pastor Vollert himself indeed testified that he did not practice church discipline according to these principles, but that on the contrary exclusions had occurred only very rarely in his ministry; yet he could not bring himself to reject these principles outright. This difference of position toward these principles has, it seems, become a reason why Pastor Vollert has not yet joined our synodical body, but not a hindrance to sacramental fellowship, since he in fact received the Sacrament with us on Wednesday."

Further: "The proposal of Pastor Crome, that the pastors separated from Breslau should present themselves to their congregations, by a formal declaration, as a united spiritual ministry, led first to a discussion of the reproach made especially against Pastor Diedrich, that he would not acknowledge a visible Church at all. And further, the reproach made against Pastor Könnemann was also discussed, that he restricted the Church of Christ to the Lutheran congregations. (While this latter point was being discussed, the pastors Ehlers, Könnemann, and Zöller had just then, around midday, entered the assembly.) On both points discussed the pastors found themselves at one in their convictions, and no hindrance presented itself to a common labor in the vineyard of the Lord; and all acknowledged with heartfelt gratitude that God had directed them to one another through their ecclesiastical leadership, to serve one another through mutual teaching, admonishing, comforting, and rebuking, so that the congregations entrusted to their care might receive all the greater blessing through their ministry." It is remarkable that Ehlers lets nothing be known about what was agreed upon, all the more since, particularly as regards Könnemann, the accusation is undoubtedly well founded. Of the second day of session Ehlers reports: "The main subject of the discussions was the deliberation on the draft — made by pastors Crome and Zöller pursuant to the commission given them the day before — of a declaration concerning our synodical position, which was to be submitted to the congregations. Since this declaration will be communicated below, it is not necessary to give its contents here.

But a letter to the Minister of Ecclesiastical Affairs was also resolved upon, a petition for state recognition. The assembly held this petition to be especially its duty because, on the occasion of marriages in congregations that are not recognized by the state, difficulties occur here and there. Further, however, why should we not seek the advantages of a position which, according to our conviction, belongs to us under the existing laws? For we cannot recognize that the congregations standing under the OKC have, as regards doctrine and confession, any advantage over us on the ground of which they could be granted what would have to be denied to us. To be sure, our