Thirdly, they forget that Luther himself never saw, much less approved,
the most objectionable and stringent of these books, the Form of
Concord, the profession of which they would make essential to
Lutheranism.
Fourthly, they overlook the fact that entire Lutheran kingdoms, such as Denmark and Sweden, from the beginning rejected some of these books, and yet are everywhere acknowledged as Lutherans.
Fifthy, [sic] they forget that the Form of Concord itself professes to regard Confessions of faith only an exhibitions of the manner in which Christians of a particular age understand the Scriptures; implying that they were not supposed even by the authors of the symbolic system themselves to be unchangeable, although their incorporation with the civil law of the land, closed the door against all subsequent improvement.
A revision of our symbolic standpoint, is therefore perfectly consistent with primitive Lutheranism; and according to the Congregational or Independent principles of Lutheran church government, advocated by Luther, and hitherto practiced on by our American church, as well as avowed by the Constitution of the General Synod, each District Synod is competent to do this work for herself as long as she retains "the fundamental doctrines of the Bible as taught by our church."
How then can this important work be best accomplished, of releasing ourselves on the one hand from the profession of the errors contained in the Confession, and on the other of avowing the unadulterated truths of God's word?
1. Shall we drop the practice of binding our ministers to any creed except the Bible, and refer in unofficial ways to the Augsburg Confession, as in general a correct summary of our views of Bible truth? This was the practice of the fathers of our church in the Synod of Pennsylvania from the beginning of this century, till within two or three years. It was practiced by that body whilst it was controlled by Drs. Helmuth, Schmidt, Muhlenberg, of Lancaster, Schaeffer, of Philadelphia, Endress, Lochman, J. G. Schmucker, Geissenhainer subsequently of New York, Muhlenberg, of Reading, and the present venerable Senior of the Ministerium, Rev. Baetis. This plan we always regarded as too lax, and preferred the distinct avowal of the Augsburg Confession as to the fundamental doctrines of the Bible, and were ourselves instrumental in introducing its qualified recognition into the General Synod's Theological Seminary in 1825, and her Constitution for District Synods in 1829. Still we have recently been denounced as unfaithful to the confession, by those unacquainted with the history of our church during the last five and thirty years.
2. Shall we adopt a new creed, to supercede [sic] the venerable Augsburg Confession? This is unnecessary, because the points regarded as erroneous in it, are confessedly few and non-essential. When these are erased, the great mass of Christian truth remains intact, and not one of all the cardinal doctrines of the Reformation is affected.
3. Shall we adopt and publish the entire Augsburg Confession, with a list annexed to it, of those points believed by the majority to be erroneous, providing that they may be rejected by all who do not believe them? This would be a contradictory procedure, first to publish the whole, and then to reject a portion of it as not symbolic or binding. If these supposed errors are not to be received, why perpetuate their memory, and afford to the enemies of our venerable church, a constant supply of material to fight against us, and render the church odious in the popular eye?
4. Shall we remain satisfied with the General Synod's doctrinal basis, of absolute assent to the Bible, and agreement with the Augsburg Confession as far as the fundamentals of God's Word are concerned?
This pledge we always regarded as accordant with the principles of God's Word, and sufficient for the necessities of the church. Amid the recent progress of more rigid symbolism, and symbolic sympathies, it has, however, been disparaged by some connected with the General Synod. We still believe it sufficient, provided all the Synods embraced in the General Synod will adhere to it; and those who have recently adopted the entire symbolic system, will return to it. But if District Synods of symbolic tendencies, will adopt the obligation to the mass of symbolic books; New School Lutherans are compelled, in self-defence, also to define their position more minutely, that the christian public may not hold them responsible for the errors of the former symbols, nor their supposed adherence to them tend to give them currency. If, therefore, Old School Synods adhere to their recent pledge to all the symbolical books, we prefer the following course for other District Synods.