The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1881-09-09
.1NAN. LrGHtnA4 IoIAT s4t0l.

] - 49, 49,
The Synod convened a $50 4, II. An i'm
rressiye opening service was conducted by
the Rev, ProE, N. 10y, Of Columbus, O., the
President Of the Synod. The Rev. Husbner,
Of Middletown, o., is German Secretary, and
Rev. Paueger Of Circlsville, o., Is the En-
glish Secretary. There are one hundred and
seven pastom present, and large number Of
lay delegates. The worthy President, after
opening, read the following; W..
~ PREsIDEXT's REPoRI.
In Chrli, Dsarly Bslorsd BrsthrF;
Already at our last regular Synod in Day.
ton, 1t appcared that no small dangers were
threatening our Synodical Conference, Since
that time tile prospectshave notbeCome better.
The pleasant relation in which, for ten years,
we stood with other Evangelical Lutheran
Synods has been disturbed by the Synod OF
Missouri and other States in such manner
that many brethren considered an extraOr-
binary meeting OF our Synod necessary, and,
in acceptance with their express wish, this
extra session has been COnvoked, Synod
had already resolved, indeed, to hold a gem
eral pastoral conference for the purpose of
discussing the existing differences In the doc
trine OF predestinatiOn,l Many brethren,
however, In view Of the procedure Of the Mis-
souri, Synod, considered 1t absolutely neces-
sary for our Synod to convene In order to be
enabled TO take decisive action. Inasmuch
Us | did not consider myself authorized to
substitute this meeting for the conference
already appointed, the day after the opening
Of conference was chosen for the session Of
the Synod. II Is now for Synod to decide
whether the conference which was begun
hall hn In
ner that the morning session be used by cOn-
ference for the purpose Of discussing the doc
trine and that Synod hold It's sessions in
the afternoon. or whether the discussion OF
doctrine be taken up by Synod itself and
COntinu Us the concern Qt syRnd
AT our session Inst autumn we did not sup
pose that one Synod would DO Obliged 30
soon to give its decision on the question OF
election, We are not wont TO act so hastily
| In such important matters, | have no
doubts that most, II not all the members OF
our Synod would be willing II circumstance,
permitted 1t, In patience md love, TO discuss
| The dispUtOd points for years, In the hope, by
! Gods Grace, finally tOeHeCt unity Of doctrine
among uS Our relations, however, are oil
such nature as TO compel US, think, IA
take clear and decided position In the burn
ing question This would In no wise hinder
us from patiently bearing with those Of diff
erent opinion among lis so fur rs they do moi
feel themselves constrained 20 condemn Oul
dortripp, mud later discussing with them the
points Of difference in brotherly love.
What IN my estimation urges us To q deols
ion Is the action of the Missouri synod In thu
present p1HtFaVeEy,. ,she. treats tho ditier
hRCR II pat IN need al itself yet in view Of TIL
accusations which among other members o
. | nur. RunnI n1an HuI Nbnn1nluna nnnukHa ~ NJ
to raise against haTA point OF separation
between churches and Therefore feels hersel
called upon to discontinue church.ielIowshil
with her opponents. This Is important 10
us In o twGf0ld aspect. In the first place W
must decide whether wo must refuse or wei
come into our Iptdst as brethren such pastor
and congregations or can no longer remain Il
that synod and apply for admission anon
u.s. III the second place We must decide Il
what relation we stand To that body after sh
has Instructed her delegates 10 the SynOdica
Conference not to stand confer with thos
who have raised against her the accusation
OF CRYanlAlng tendencies.
Az regards the first part, the MliSoul
1synod, rs Is well known, took occasion I
: lay down confession with reference to tn
burning question, because In her own mids
QNpOGItipn arose against the doctrine Of pr
deltination, Us SGT forth In her qualifications
; This confession Is Ut such Import as to max
It impossible for some members Of the Syno
: CnnsClentlnusly to accept II. On the on
. hand, these have already withdrawn frol
the Synod because OF her departure from til
| old Lutheran doctrine, ind on the other han
they will IN all probability 6o yOt COnstralr
| ed IA TAKE this step Those, however occup
the saIie doctrinal position which they OcCI
pied for years, and simply refuse TO sui
scribe TO n doctrine In contradiction wit
their old faith. Hitherto we have Oherishe
iraternal communion with them. In9smuc
IS they can no longer remain In tho Nilsson
Synod, some at them come to us, II seen
we also must refuse TO fellowship them In IL
!. future, on account Of, their refusal to abando
!, tho dGCtFlne they have hitherto Coniesse,
. and To accept the new confession OF Missouri
4. Though II Il greatly to be regretted that "
= must no soon come TO decision In tho que
ton, II Is certain think, thNt under the d
cumstatres n decision must hp given,
fhs matter referred Ia In The second poll
likewise urges us 10 give such decision.
u might appear to some, indeed, as though Il
Instructions given to the delegates Of the MI
: souri, Synod did not concern lis as a SyOO
and rs though this would Ia no wise hind
= us from proceeding as usual without takiT
sides Ia the present dpotrinal ContrOycrA
Ili!5, however, Is not the case For amOl
those with whom the delegates Of Nilsson
y arc nat 10 all md confer arc, as we have
u from reliable sources, also some members
y our Synod, and among them those who ha
Z been chosen as delegates to the SynodlC
: Conference. The fact, therefore, that Il
Q Missouri Synod will not confer with the
c constrNins US Ina two.told manner asa SynC
n 10 declare one position In the Controvers
u On tho one hand tho question arises whCth
o we Gun and Will sit aud confer with tho
with whom Missouri according to her OW
Il declaration, cHln.4n0t. In this way we n
thustO refuse fellowship with our membe
!. who will no longer recognize Missouri
i brethren, or to separate from Missouri
8 sitting or canfCrlHg With these as former
and Nj pRrtaklng III their eyes Of their su
Q nose0 Stu, The question thus forced upC
n lls cannot possibly bc decided without takit
o Ia firm position In the present contrOYers
9 Neither ought we TO ignore the fact that OF
!, Synod has already chosen those aS delegates
e the SynodiCal Conference whom Missouri wi
It no longer acknowledge as brethren. 1--we inst
on glf Wight 10 elect our delegates Ourselv
without permitting the Missouri Synod
dictate anything to us In this regard, sllO vi
|. thereby cease TO recognize our Synod, ina
"a much rs our delegates will not be recognize
= The Tppulslun Of our delegates would Be-
y pulSOh Of the Synod itself, in0sinncl US Il
@ former were elected after thOIr position IN Il
II controversy and the declaration OF Nilsson
over against them were generally know
g Furthermore, Our IleleeatGs will certainly n
y be willing 10 submit 10 an investigation {
!. the part Of the Synodical Conference Concer
y Ing their orthodoxy, inasmuch as this Ia II
y the business Of that body, but their on
!, Synod II their own Synod Ia satisfied vii
y their doCtrihRl pNaltldi, the SynodCal Co
y fetpbCp las not to deal with the dclegat,
" persons II their orthodoxy Is questioned, b
!, With their Synod. II seems 10 me, therefor
u simply impossible 10 decide The praClic
qnesIinN al our relation to- the Synodic
Conference, without deciding at tic san
tinie Which position We ocCupyNih the COntr
l. versyi Tho procedure Of the Missouri synt
10 oompgls liz To TX Our position In the bufnit
IA question a. decidedly rs she has done
y ] beg leave, therefore, to recommend
r. ihtN hn1y that In a