American Lutheranism Vindicated; or, Examination of the Lutheran Symbols, on Certain Disputed Topic | Page 5

hero of the sixteenth century, to whom Christianity is so hugely
indebted, was almost entirely expended in controversial efforts; and
even the mild and peace-loving Melancthon, though he advised his
aged mother not to trouble herself about religious controversies,
himself felt it his duty to devote much of his time, his learning, and his
talents to the vindication of the truth against its enemies. [Note 1] We
are commanded "earnestly to contend for the faith once, delivered to
the saints," and by inference for those regulations, which tend to secure
that faith. We are taught to pray for the unity of the disciples of Christ,
"that they may be one as He and the Father are one," and consequently
to oppose such regulations as tend to sever the bonds of union among
God's people, and cause divisions in the household of Christ. Such
means for defending the faith, are creeds which inculcate only those
doctrines clearly taught in Scripture; such hindrances to union and
apples of discord, are creeds embracing many minor points, not clearly
decided in Scripture, on which true Christians differ, and which are not
necessary for cordial co-operation among the children of God.
Within the last few months, a discussion on creeds has occupied the
religious papers of our church in this country, the specific subjects of
which were the merits of the "Definite Synodical Platform" recently

adopted by several of our Western Synods, and the import and
scriptural truth of some portions of that venerable document, the
Augsburg Confession. In these discussions we took part, in a series of
articles over the initials of our name, in the Lutheran Observer, in
vindication of the Definite Platform, which we hold to be a faithful and
definite exhibition of the import of the generic doctrinal pledge of the
General Synod. That pledge includes, in connection with absolute
assent to the Word of God, as the only infallible rule of faith and
practice, the belief "that the fundamental doctrines of Scripture are
taught in a manner substantially correct in the doctrinal articles of the
Augsburg Confession:" and the Platform is an unaltered copy of these
articles of that confession, only omitting those parts, which we know
by long acquaintance with American Lutherans, to be generally
regarded by them not only as nonfundamental, but erroneous. The
Definite Platform, therefore, retains even more of the Augsburg
Confession than the General Synod's pledge requires; for it contains
some specifications of the Augsburg Confession, which though true,
are not fundamental. The Platform is, therefore, more symbolic than the
General Synod's doctrinal basis, though the contrary opinion has
repeatedly been expressed, by those who have not carefully examined.
Had both parties in this discussion exhibited more christian comity, and
abstained from personalities, levelling their logical artillery against
opinions instead of the persons entertaining them; the effect upon the
church would, we think, have been favorable, and unity of sentiment
might have been promoted. That a different impression has been made
on many minds is, doubtless, owing to the human infirmity and passion
that mingled in the contest. Which party exhibited the largest amount of
this weakness, we will not undertake to decide, although we doubt not,
that here as in most other cases, the judgment of the Leyden cobbler
would be found correct, who was in the habit of attending the public
Latin disputations of the university, and when asked whether he
understood Latin, replied, "No, but I know who is wrong in the
argument, by seeing who gets angry first." Nevertheless, christian truth
has often been defended in a very unchristian way, and doubtless more
depends on the natural temper and the manners of the disputants, as
well as the extent to which divine grace enables them to subdue their
passions. The disposition occasionally evinced, to frown down

discussion by invective and denunciation, is not only illogical, as it
proves neither the affirmative nor negative of the disputed question; but
in this free country, where we acknowledge no popes, and in the
judgment of free Americans, who think for themselves, it must always
reflect unfavorably on its authors.
The same topic, so closely connected with the prosperity of our beloved
church, is to engage our attention on the present occasion, in reply to an
interesting, christian, and gentlemanly pamphlet, from the pen of the
Rev. Mr. Mann, of Philadelphia, who controverts some of the positions
of the Definite Synodical Platform. It shall be my earnest effort to write
in the same christian manner, and my prayer is that the Spirit of our
Divine Master may direct my pen, that it may record "No line, which
dying, I could wish to blot."
In order that our readers may follow, with advantage, the reasonings of
this treatise, it is necessary that we should conduct them to the