“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 be assigned why they cannot be debated to the edification of the church, except the human frailty of disputants.  Had these subjects been discussed in our religious papers with calmness,