American Lutheranism Vindicated; or, Examination of the Lutheran Symbols, on Certain Disputed Topic | Page 9

p. 4. This concession is no less honorable to the
reverend author, than the fact itself is important in the discussion of the
subject before us. As the contrary has frequently been asserted in this
country, in the face of history, it seems proper to advert to its details.
The facts in the case are the following:
The Form of Concord was rejected in Denmark, Sweden, Hessia,
Pommerania, Holstein, Anhalt, and the cities of Strasburg, Frankfurt a.
m. Speier, Worms, Nuerenberg, Magdeburg, Bremen, Dantzig, &c. For
particulars see Koellner's Symbolik, Vol. I, pp. 575-77.
The Smalcald Articles were rejected by Sweden and Denmark.

The Apology to the Augsburg Confession, was denied, official authority,
by Sweden and Denmark.
The Larger Catechism of Luther, in Sweden and Denmark.
Even the Smaller Catechism of Luther was not received as symbolic in
Sweden. See Guericke's Symbolik, pp. 67, &c., 113.
Here, then, we perceive, that those ultra Lutherans of our day, who
insist on the whole mass of former symbols as essential to Lutheranism,
must unchurch a very large portion of the Lutheran Church even of the
sixteenth century. But among these we can by no means class the
author of the Plea, who is evidently a Lutheran of the more enlightened
and liberal class.
The author of the Plea represents "the Augsburg Confession, as the
unexceptionable password of the adherents of the Lutheran Church for
three centuries." The idea designed probably is, that the great mass of
doctrines taught in this confession has been thus received. For it is a
historical fact, that cannot be contested, that private confession, which
is enjoined in the eleventh, twenty-fifth and twenty-eighth Articles of
the Augsburg Confession, and was retained by Luther, Melancthon and
their churches, was from the begining [sic] rejected by the entire
Lutheran Church in Sweden and Denmark, as well as other places, and
a public confession of the whole church, such as is now employed in
Germany and this country, introduced in its stead. See Siegel's
Handbuch, Vol. I., p. 200.
"Of course the accusation against the Augsburg Confession, involves
an exhibition of Luther and Melancthon, those pillars of the
Reformation, as teaching heretical doctrines, which are not in
accordance with the word of God." p. 4. This language we regard as not
entirely correct. Those errors alone are, in correct English, usually
termed "heretical," which are of fundamental importance, and deny
some doctrine that is necessary to salvation. That this is neither
affirmed or implied by the Platform, must, we think, be admitted by all.
But that both Luther and Melancthon did entertain some erroneous
views in 1530, some of which are taught in the Augsburg Confession,

namely, those specified in the Platform, is affirmed by the great body
of our American Lutheran Church.
"The errors are not, on the side of the Augsburg Confession, but on the
side of those who agitate our Lutheran Church with the introduction of
a fatherless and motherless child, the Definite Platform." To this we
reply, the Platform was publicly adopted by three or four Synods in the
West, within a few weeks after its publication. As to its authorship, we
never denied having prepared it, at the urgent request of some of those
brethren, on the plan agreed on by them, and some Eastern brethren of
the very first respectability. It was carefully revised by ourselves and
Dr. B. Kurtz, and we have not yet found a single one of its positions
refuted. That the request was made and complied with, will not be
regarded as discreditable to either party by impartial judges, after the
smoke of battle shall have disappeared, and the vision of men again be
unobstructed. As to the friends of the Platform being agitators of the
church, we regard the supposition as erroneous. The Platform was
designed to be adopted by those Western Synods, as it has been,
publicly, but without controversy, as other Synods had done before
with their symbolic platforms. But enemies of the Platform raised the
alarm, and agitated the church with threatened dangers. That the friends
of the assailed instrument should stand up in its vindication, was an
indispensable act of self-defence, to which no impartial man will
object.
"We shall endeavor to maintain in this controversy, a dignified and
Christian spirit, as becomes this holy subject, and those who, differing
in some points, know one Master and one service. People on earth will
always differ in their opinions. The truth will gain by giving free scope
to investigation, and by the illustration of the different sides of the
same question." This position is true, and creditable alike to the head
and the heart of the author. Church government and doctrine are topics
of primary importance to the prosperity of the kingdom of the
Redeemer, and no reason can