In 1841, our dear Keyl published a letter in the Rudelbach - Guericke journal in Germany entitled: "Open confessions of the former pastor Keyl in Niederfrohna about his fellowship with Stephan and the sins committed therein." We would like to share some of this confession here, insofar as it seems necessary to us, in order to present the reader with a clear picture of the life and work of the blessed Keyl. However, we do not want to conceal the fact that there are also some false things in this confession which Keyl himself later recognized as false. For in it he confesses some things as sin which were not sin, and he repents of some actions for which he had no need to repent. It happened to him as it happens to many a sinner who is frightened into repentance, who easily makes himself conscience-stricken about something that is not against his conscience, or allows others to make him sin over something that is not a sin. This is what happened to our dear Keyl when he lost sight of his aberrations in Stephanism. The pain that gripped his soul influenced his judgment in such a way that he considered something evil that had been good and pleasing to God. But this circumstance gives us testimony of his tender conscience, for a tender conscience, rightly sharpened by God's Word, is such that it easily does too much rather than too little in a good cause.
It will be interesting for your dear reader to learn how our Keyl first became acquainted with Pastor Stephan and in what way he was drawn into his closer fellowship. He tells this himself in the following words
"I got to know Stephan in Leipzig in 1828. And because I considered him to be an experienced minister of the divine word, I used his advice in some matters relating to the preparation for the preaching ministry. When I was entrusted with the parish of Niederfrohna the following year, I was still far removed from any attachment to his person. At that time, I submitted to his claims and his stubbornness so little that I openly contradicted him. This happened especially during a longer meeting with him in 1831, when I got into an argument with him because of a dangerous error in the doctrine of authority and then also with one of his followers because of a violent outburst of Stephen's anger over an insignificant trifle. When I was therefore, at Stephen's instigation, very severely chastised in several letters, and yet I could not convince myself that I had done wrong, the result was that I kept myself at a complete distance from Stephen for almost two years.
"But I was reproached more and more sharply by some of Stephen's followers that by such a separation from him I was depriving myself and my congregation of great spiritual advantages, disturbing the unity of the true church, giving serious offense to its members, tempting them by my example to a similar separation, and making those who could still be won over (namely for Stephen) suspicious of association with him; It is only out of pride that I, as a young and inexperienced man, do not want to submit to such a venerable and experienced man, to whom none of the ministers of the divine word in our time can be compared.
"By such and similar notions I allowed myself to be lured again into the net from which I had once before happily escaped, and when in 1834 I had occasion to travel to Dresden, I re-established my former connection with Stephan, without first having come to terms on the disputed points; indeed, I committed the folly of asking his forgiveness in the most humble terms. From this time onwards my confidence in him increased more and more, for I believed that I found in him, as in no other teacher I knew, much that was praiseworthy.
"Stephan possessed, as far as I could judge at that time, a precise knowledge of the pure doctrine of the Lutheran Church, a comprehensive insight into the ever-increasing decay of the same, a sharp discernment in judging false and true Lutheranism, a great zeal to hold on to the latter, especially in opposition to the ever-increasing lukewarmness and against the tendency to abolish all confessional differences for the sake of love, but at the expense of truth. I had to give preference to his printed sermons over all newer ones in terms of pure doctrine and popular presentation. Stephan possessed a broad knowledge of the world, and he could often speak very aptly of the experiences of a Christian in the most varied circumstances and give much good advice. I considered the opposition that manifested itself in various ways against Stephen to be a suffering for the sake of Christ, and therefore honored him all the more, especially since his opponents generally did not criticize his teaching, but his way of life, whereby he knew how to deceive many, even the authorities, so that he always emerged as innocent from many investigations. Therefore, I gave all the more room to the thought that the evil rumors about Stephen's secret sins were nothing but slander, which only arose from aversion to his teaching. I can assure the omniscient God that during my entire ten-year acquaintance with him I never had the slightest trace of these works of darkness that he practiced, indeed, that I never even suspected such a thing!
"Stephen strongly and repeatedly recommended me to read the Holy Scriptures, the symbolical books, the writings of Dr. Luther and other Lutheran teachers: but he accustomed me more and more to accept his interpretation as the only correct one in the explanation of the Holy Scriptures, and to look at the writings of Lutheran teachers through a glass colored by him; so that I unfortunately sometimes misused the sayings of Luther and other theologians to reinforce my Stephanism. Stephen knew how to lead his followers gradually and unnoticed to a certain mistrust of those teachers by occasionally pointing out such and such shortcomings in their writings, which sometimes happened not without good reason. He used to say of Luther's writings, as often as they contradicted his assertions, that they must be understood differently, for Luther had explained himself more clearly elsewhere, or that they were not suitable for our time; for a particular thieving trick with which he stole Luther's writings from the hearts of his deluded followers, even though he had given them into their hands, was that he always claimed that Luther must be translated from his time into ours. But he made such statements with a pretended deep humility, as if he considered himself the least of Luther's disciples; indeed, he even said several times: "If it were permitted to worship saints, he would fall down before Luther. ..
"So I fell more and more into the most disgraceful human bondage against Stephan.... I considered him - oh, it seems incredible to me now - a chosen armament of God, the last light in this time, a pillar of the church. ... I was also foolish enough to inform him of most events, especially in my ministry, and to ask for his advice, which I immediately followed. Confessional differences All this was done with the intention of behaving exactly according to the word of God and the insights of such an experienced man."
From this open, unvarnished confession, friend and foe alike can now clearly recognize the motives that guided Keyl when he joined Pastor Stephan in Dresden. Even the most perceptive enemy will not be able to discover even the slightest dishonest intention in this; on the contrary, he will have to confess that his intentions were only good and praiseworthy. What guided him in his closer association with Stephen and his community was the idea that Christians should seek and cultivate unity in spirit with their brothers and fellow believers, and that they should also diligently seek outward fellowship and connection, because this promotes unity in spirit all the more. In addition, Stephen was regarded as a man experienced in the ways of God, indeed as a pillar of the orthodox church; Keyl therefore felt all the more obliged to associate with such a man in order to learn from him. But if one wanted to say that he should have taken into account the bad rumors circulating about Stephen, it must be replied that he had not heard anything about them at the time. And when he later heard about it through a good friend, he first became very quiet, then after a while he said: "I cannot believe the rumor; but if it is nevertheless true that Stephen had fallen into such sins, he will also have repented of his sins, like David. Just as God did not reject the repentant David, but made him a prophet for us to hear, so I will not reject Stephen either, but will learn from him as long as God has not revealed him to be a hypocrite." Let us remember this remarkable and quite correct statement by Keyl, for it is suitable to reconcile us with him about his fellowship with Stephen.
But what consequences our blessed friend's connection with Stephan had had, especially with regard to his conduct of his office, he thus allows himself to be questioned about:
"This idolatrous worship of Stephen now had a pernicious influence on me and my entire ministry. . . I have often aroused suspicion against myself, especially in my teaching, as if true Christianity consisted in an outward monastic seclusion from the world and in certain forms of public and private worship; as if I only considered those to be true Christians who adopted this way and joined me more closely. Unfortunately, I have thereby caused some to harbor all kinds of harmful prejudices against true Christianity. I have often by untimely and exaggerated sharpness and severity in my expressions embittered the hearers more than convinced them; more often thundered down with the law than raised up again with the gospel; made them feel the burden of sin more than awakened the desire for the grace of God. I have not always presented repentance toward God, faith in Christ, new obedience, constancy to the end in the proper connection, not clearly enough as the sole fruit of grace, and often in such a way that the thought could easily arise that it is impossible to live this way. Oh, how many wholesome fruits of the Word of God I have hindered in such and similar ways!
"Furthermore, in my behavior towards others, and especially towards my congregation, I acquired many a reprehensible trait from Stephan. In my dealings with others I often proved to be very unfriendly, harsh and repulsive, impatient and unloving. . Unfortunately, this behavior of mine increasingly weakened the love and trust in me of a large part of the congregation and thus also reduced the blessing of my ministry. ... I do not speak here of what God's work has been on their souls, for I am convinced that God's grace has not been in vain on some of them, as well as on some others of my listeners who have come closer to me, and I also hope that many of them will have retained this grace; I speak only of my wrong actions and deeds. What at first and in certain cases was a need for some to seek special and further instruction, advice and consolation for their souls from God's Word became more and more a habit, which in the end almost had the force of law. The more frequent or less frequent coming to me was taken as a standard by which the individual was to be judged; for the delusion became more and more prevalent that no one could find the right way to heaven and stay on it without special advice from his pastor. What the pastor now said was not usually first tested according to the infallible word of God, as is the duty of all Christians, but was accepted as true without such testing, which was already regarded as a sign of distrust, because the person who said it had received the preaching office from God, and because such passages of the Bible, which speak of obedience to teachers, were applied without any restriction. In such and similar ways, unfortunately, the hearts of many were led into a sinful, sectarian attachment to my person and to Stephen, and into such a mutual fellowship that may have brought them more harm than good."
Let's stop here for a moment and take a look back at the above and ask: What was it that actually brought our dear Keyl into such a crooked, unevangelical position through his fellowship with Stephen? He says this himself with the words: "The delusion took over more and more that no one could find the right way to heaven and stay on it without special advice from his pastor." At this point we want to draw attention to the error underlying this delusion, because we believe that an indication of this will serve to clarify so-called Stephanism and its history.
Stephan had by no means recognized the pure, pure doctrine of the Lutheran Church in its full clarity, nor did he teach it; but neither could he be shown to have committed even one conspicuous error. In his book of sermons one will search in vain for a sharply pronounced error. For example, he was a chiliast, but as far as we know, the chiliastic error is only hinted at in one sermon, the sermon on the Feast of the Ascension, and then only from a distance. We can confidently say that Stephen's sermons could still be read today, as far as their content is concerned, by our Lutheran Christians without offense, to their benefit and piety. We can confidently say that Stephen's sermons could still serve as a model for all Lutheran preachers today on how to preach the law and the gospel, repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ to the Christian people in an instructive and edifying, plain and simple way. It is completely true what Stephan says in his preface to his book of sermons: "My honest intention in all these sermons was . . . to lead my listeners to true faith in Jesus Christ, to a righteous Christian life, to comfort in suffering and to a blessed death."
And further: "I am firmly convinced that only the Bible can be a source of pure Christian doctrine. Our pious fathers drew from it and preserved the pure doctrine for us in the confessional writings of our Lutheran Church. To spread this pure doctrine is also my honest endeavor in this writing." Likewise: "In these sermons I have spoken more about faith in Jesus Christ than about morality, for I am convinced that this faith is the source of all true holiness, all good works and all true comfort." And finally: "I will show no other way to salvation than that of true faith in Jesus Christ." All this is completely true and is confirmed by every page of the book mentioned.
But what was actually wrong with so-called Stephanism? The wrong direction in Stephanism had its origin in a false view of the preaching office. The preaching office was made into a kind of means of grace, and not the preaching office in the broader sense, insofar as Article V of the Augsburg Confession understood it to mean "gospel and sacrament"; but the preaching office in the narrower sense, insofar as it was understood to mean the parish office, the special pastoral office: namely, that without this office no one could find the way to heaven and walk on it. This was the root of the error in Stephanism, from which other errors grew, such as the spiritual priesthood of all Christians, Christian freedom, etc., which finally damaged the doctrine of justification itself. From this error arose the unevangelical, legal practice, as described by Keyl himself in the foregoing and whose consequences he so bitterly lamented and regretted. But we can learn from this that the false doctrine of the preaching office is very dangerous for the Christian life, that it is apt to throw a Christian back under the servant yoke of the law, that he completely loses the gospel again and falls from grace.
So he lets himself be heard about his co-promotion of the emigration of the Saxon Lutherans to America in 1838:
"The main point I made to those around me about emigration was as follows: Whoever wants to be saved must not only have the Word of God itself, but also the public preaching of the same, and not only the right baptism and ecclesiastical absolution, but also Holy Communion pure and unadulterated. Since the Lutheran Church is the only one among the visible churches that has the Word of God and the sacraments pure and unadulterated, everyone who knows this true church must adhere to it, if it is only reasonably possible for him to do so. The Lutheran Church in Saxony still retained the symbolic books in name, but in fact, in most churches and schools, the symbolic books proclaimed by the teachers were taught obviously and unpunished, and the sacraments were falsified in many places. Those teachers who still firmly adhered to the symbolic books would therefore have to put up with obvious reproaches and rightly fear that if they continued to adhere to them, stricter measures would be taken against them and they might even be removed from office. Since, moreover, it had already been widely and publicly discussed and desired that the abolition of the symbolic books should be abolished and thus the dividing wall between Lutherans and Reformed abolished, and that so-called contemporary changes should be made with regard to the agenda, hymnals and schoolbooks: in this state of affairs and the almost general hatred of the Word of God, nothing more could be hoped for the Lutheran Church and it would not be able to hold on much longer. It was our duty, however, to take all possible care for its preservation for ourselves and our descendants, and this could be done in no other way than if we ... transplanted it from Europe to America and sought to restore its former purity in doctrine, constitution and life, for which purpose the introduction of strict church discipline and an episcopal constitution modeled on the Swedish Lutheran Church and the establishment of Christian teaching and educational institutions should serve.... According to Stephen's account, I compared the emigration with Noah's entry into the ark, with Lot's escape from Sodom, with Israel's exodus from the house of Egypt, and in doing so I quoted Ruth's words to Naomi: "Where you go, I will go; where you stay, I will stay," and interpreted the passages about fleeing the abomination of desolation, about shaking off the dust when people no longer wanted to hear the word of God, and about leaving Babylon as a sign of emigration."
If Keyl now confesses in the following that his withdrawal from the national church and his co-sponsorship of emigration was something sinful, one must not forget that he later changed his mind and passed the opposite judgment. When he wrote his confession, he had awakened with horror from his aberrations in Stephanism; but it had not yet become clear to him what was actually sinful about so-called Stephanism and everything connected with it, and what was not sinful but pleasing to God. When he published his confession, the strange disputation that was held here in Altenburg (and which we will come to in the next chapter) had not yet taken place, through which the great confusion among the immigrants was first controlled, many serious errors and doubts of conscience were lifted with God's word and a great clarity in the doctrine was brought about, through which Keyl was also first led to a better understanding. In his confession he had allowed himself to be guided only by the painful feeling of his errors, and so it happened that he fell from one extreme into the other, as is so easy for the sinner in repentance, because, as the Scriptures say, the heart of man is a stubborn and despondent thing. Keyl had recognized that there was much that was human and sinful in the whole course of events, and Stephen's exposure in particular had made a terribly shattering impression on him; thus, in his sadness and melancholy, he allowed himself to be carried away to throw out the baby with the bathwater, as they say, and to declare as sin even that which had been good and pleasing to God because it was tainted with human weaknesses. It was therefore not surprising that the publication of his confession caused great offense among the emigrants, who thanked God from the bottom of their hearts that they had happily escaped the tyranny of the state church, which had fallen away from the faith.
When Keyl declared his resignation from the Saxon regional church, he took this step, as he himself says, "not with fear and trembling", not in doubt of his conscience, but "in the firm conviction that he was doing God a service". If he later thought in the temptation that it was a sinful step, that was the voice of an erring conscience. Leaving a regional church can never be sinful in itself, even if the regional church is still orthodox. A national church as such is not a divine institution, is not founded by Christ. A national church, or rather a state church, exists through the state, depends on the state, is governed by the state (albeit through consistories as instruments of the state) and is compelled to obey the state in accordance with the fourth commandment. A national church, or rather a state church as such, is therefore a purely state institution, which only exists as long as the arm of the state upholds, maintains and protects it. Suppose now that such a state church were orthodox, and that Christians in it enjoyed complete freedom of conscience (as was the case at the time of the Reformation): it would not be against the conscience of a Christian to live under a state church constitution; but under certain circumstances it would not be a sin for him to leave the association of a state church. The bond that holds the state churches together as such was not knotted by Christ; for it is not the bond of "unity in the Spirit": rather, it is human cords that the arm of the secular authorities has wrapped around them. But when such a state church has also quite obviously fallen away from the faith, when in its pulpits and universities the divinity of Jesus Christ is impudently denied, his miracles denied, the fact of redemption removed, and Christ is made only a teacher of wisdom, who has atoned for his boldness with death; when the Holy Spirit of God is made a mere enthusiasm in man, the Holy Trinity is denied and the Bible is degraded to a - still venerable - book of fables; finally, when the highest ecclesiastical authority shows and makes believing preachers and Christians feel its hatred in every conceivable way, tries to make their office and their Christian status more difficult, considers them to be the most dangerous and harmful people in the country, who must be fought <pages 44> and curbed by all means: what, we ask, should a Christian do in such a state of affairs? Should he then still ask anxiously whether it is not sinful for him to flee from such a Babel, to run away from such streams of Belial with his wife and children, so that he may save his soul and those of his own? - And the Saxon Lutherans found themselves in such a situation when they broke away from the regional church in 1838. In doing so, they not only acted rightly, but also fulfilled a sacred Christian duty. Their act was an act of confession that is written in heaven. The state of the Saxon regional church was already just as bleak then as it is today, and the reasons for leaving it were just as compelling for Christians at that time as they are today. It may well be that in that separation from the state church, some human and sinful things got in the way (and it was this that actually complained to our dear Keyl), but the good cause was not thereby made evil; it was and remained a work pleasing to God, even despite all the human weaknesses clinging to it.
But as far as emigration to America is concerned, which Keyl also declared to be sinful in the Anfechtung (although he later changed his mind), let us note the following: In general, emigration to another region or to another country is in itself a free matter, that is, it is not a matter of conscience, but is left to the judgment of reason. A Christian, however, begins everything with God, and his main concern in everything he undertakes remains that he should not suffer any harm to his soul. If he now feels compelled to seek out a new home, he is primarily concerned that he remains with the church and school, and that is a matter of conscience for him. But as far as the emigration of the Saxon Lutherans is concerned, with which we are actually dealing here, one could ask: Why did they not remain in their old homeland and found a free church, as was later done in Saxony, which at that time might have justified greater hopes than is the case in our time? We answer: At that time it would have been easier to say than to do. We believe that the founding of a free church in Saxony at that time would have been an impossibility. Don't forget: it was only 1838 when the Saxon Lutherans left the regional church, it was not yet 1848! Since the latter year, it has only been possible for free churches to emerge in Germany that are completely independent of the state. Of course, this right was not a gift of grace from the modern state or the secularized state churches - oh no! The evil democrats and revolutionaries wrested it from the state and fought for it. But even they did not fight for this freedom out of love for the Christians - beware! but Christ, the Lord, has granted this freedom to the Christians in the regional churches, who are groaning in the pangs of conscience, so that now the police arm of the regional church can no longer hold them by force, but that they can now build their own houses of prayer and found Christian schools and thus serve God in the pious way of their fathers. However, the Saxon Lutherans would not have gained this freedom in their homeland in 1838. Only one path was open to them - emigration to America. And they were quite right to take this path. They were only doing what their conscience had long told them to do, and for all too long they had allowed themselves to be forced to do many things against their conscience, and yet they had not the slightest prospect of ever being freed from this pressure of conscience in any other way than by emigrating. They did not seek earthly goods, but freedom of faith and conscience and the salvation of their souls. And that they therefore left their fatherland and friendship, they had the word of Christ for themselves, since he says: "Whoever forsakes houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, will receive it a hundredfold and inherit eternal life."
But that God also had his wise intentions in this emigration is clear to everyone. We do not want to deny that some human and sinful things were attached to the emigration, but nevertheless God brought out his wise intentions through it. He, who also guides evil and perversity, and who makes even human folly subservient to his kingdom, also guided the sin-stained emigration out of miraculous grace to great blessing. For after many days of deep humiliation, which he allowed to come upon the emigrants in order to free them from all human idolatry and other follies, he also allowed his sun of grace to shine upon them again and made them into a fruitful spiritual mother in this distant evening land, as it is now by day.
Keyl writes the following about this wonderful and gracious work of God
"We were brought to the knowledge of Stephen, to which, in all probability, neither the most urgent ideas nor the severest persecutions, if it had come to that, could have brought us in our old fatherland, without the sad experiences made here; - and then we were driven most emphatically to seek the answer to many important questions with new zeal and with a sincere desire in the Holy Scriptures themselves and in the unsuspicious testimonies of the Fathers of our Church, above all Luther himself.
"Thanks and praise be to the faithful and merciful God that he has borne me with such great patience and longsuffering and has not let me die in my sins; that he has awakened me from my deep sleep of sin and opened my eyes to recognize both the great power of my sins and the even greater power of his grace. Yes, it is dear to me that he has humbled me so that I may learn his rights. The bitter but salutary remembrance of my sins will accompany me to the end, but my consolation shall be the word of the Lord: "I will forgive them their trespasses and remember their sins no more? "